[Prehospital management of acute coronary syndrome in patients on long-term direct oral anticoagulant treatment]. / Prähospitale Behandlung des akuten Koronarsyndroms unter DOAK-Dauertherapie.

BACKGROUND: Despite an increasing incidence of patients suffering from acute coronary syndrome (ACS) under simultaneous treatment with direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC), neither sufficient scientific data nor uniform guidelines for the anticoagulation treatment of these patients are currently available. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine the current practice of preclinical treatment of ACS in patients under DOAC treatment. MATERIAL AND METHODS: An internet and paper-based survey of emergency physicians, specialists of internal medicine, anesthesiologists, emergency and intensive care physicians was performed concerning the prehospital treatment of ACS in patients under long-term DOAC treatment. RESULTS: Overall, 284 questionnaires were answered. Substantial differences in the current treatment of ACS under long-term DOAC therapy were identified. While 39% of the respondents stated that they administer a combination treatment of heparin and acetylsalicylic acid (ASA), 36% renounced the administration of heparin. If a dose reduction was performed, 71% answered that they reduce the heparin dosage. Also, in cases of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction 48% of the physicians renounced the administration of heparin. CONCLUSION: In Germany there is currently a heterogeneous practice of emergency treatment of ACS patients under DOAC therapy with respect to the administration of heparin and ASA. Therefore, guidelines of the specialist medical societies should address the prehospital emergency anticoagulation management of ACS in patients under therapy with DOAC, which correspond to the needs of patients and emergency physicians.

[Current treatment concepts for trauma-related cardiac arrest : Focal points, differences and similarities]. / Aktuelle Behandlungskonzepte des "traumatischen Herz-Kreislauf-Stillstands" : Schwerpunkte, Unterschiede und Gemeinsamkeiten.

Trauma-related deaths are not only a relevant medical problem but also a socioeconomic one. The care of a polytraumatized patient is one of the less commonly occurring missions in the rescue and emergency medical services. The aim of this article is to compare the similarities and differences between different course concepts and guidelines in the treatment of trauma-related cardiac arrests (TCA) and to filter out the main focus of each concept. Because of the various approaches in the treatment of polytraumatized patients, there are decisive differences between trauma-related cardiac arrests and cardiac arrests from other causes.

Out-of-hospital airway management during manual compression or automated chest compression devices : A registry-based analysis.

BACKGROUND: Airway management during resuscitation is pivotal for treating hypoxia and inducing reoxygenation. This German Resuscitation Registry (GRR) analysis investigated the influence of the type of airway used in patients treated with manual chest compression (mCC) and automated chest compression devices (ACCD) after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). METHODS: Out of 42,977 patients (1 January 2010-30 June 2016) information on outcome, airway management and method of chest compressions were available for 27,544 patients. Hospital admission under cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), hospital admission with return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), hospital discharge and discharge with cerebral performance categories 1 and 2 (CPC 1,2) were used to compare outcome in patients treated with mCC vs. ACCD, and classified by endotracheal intubation (ETI), initial supraglottic airway device (SAD) changed into ETI, and only SAD use. RESULTS: Outcomes for hospital admission under ongoing CPR, hospital admission with ROSC, hospital discharge and neurologically intact survival (CPC 1,2) for mCC (84.8%) vs. ACCD (15.2%) groups were: 8.4/38.6%, 39.2/27.2%, 10.6/6.8%, 7.9/4.7% (p < 0.001), respectively. Only mCC with SAD/ETI for ever ROSC (OR 1.466, 95% CI: 1.353-1.588, p < 0.001) and mCC group with SAD/ETI for hospital admission with ROSC showed better outcomes (odds ratio [OR] 1.277, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.179-1.384, p < 0.001) in comparison to mCC treated with ETI. Compared to mCC/ETI, all other groups were associated with a decrease in neurologically intact survival. CONCLUSION: Better outcomes were found for mCC in comparison to ACCD and ETI showed better outcomes in comparison to SAD only. This observational registry study raised the hypothesis that SAD only should be avoided or SAD should be changed into ETI, independent of whether mCC or ACCD is used.

[Recommendations for extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (eCPR) : Consensus statement of DGIIN, DGK, DGTHG, DGfK, DGNI, DGAI, DIVI and GRC]. / Empfehlungen zur extrakorporalen kardiopulmonalen Reanimation (eCPR) : Konsensuspapier der DGIIN, DGK, DGTHG, DGfK, DGNI, DGAI, DIVI und GRC.

Extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (eCPR) may be considered as a rescue attempt for highly selected patients with refractory cardiac arrest and potentially reversible etiology. Currently there are no randomized, controlled studies on eCPR, and valid predictors of benefit and outcome which might guide the indication for eCPR are lacking. Currently selection criteria and procedures differ across hospitals and standardized algorithms are lacking. Based on expert opinion, the present consensus statement provides a proposal for a standardized treatment algorithm for eCPR.

[Future of emergency medicine in Germany 2.0]. / Zukunft der Notfallmedizin in Deutschland 2.0.

In 2003 an article on the future of prehospital emergency medicine in Germany was published in the journal Der Anaesthesist. Emergency medicine in Germany, which at that time was almost exclusively defined as prehospital emergency rescue, has evolved and now in-hospital domains have increasingly moved into the focus. At that time, the primary goal was to connect prehospital management with a smooth transition to hospital admission and further care in the hospital and to further optimize the rescue chain from the actual emergency through to causative treatment. Now after 15 years, the authors have critically assessed the development postulated in 2003 and reevaluated it. Which aspects could be developed further and become firmly established, what is still open and which questions in preclinical and clinical emergency treatment of the population will occupy us in the coming 15 years? With a critical eye to the past, the present contribution aims to capture the essential and new topics and open questions and provide a fresh perspective for the future of emergency medicine. Regulation at the state level or even lower levels of government often stand in contrast to more sweeping and economically effective approaches at the federal level. Prehospital emergency medicine in Germany is on the whole well-positioned with respect to facilities and personnel; however, as far as the economic situation and the utilization of available systems are concerned, there is still substantial room for improvement.

[German resuscitation registry : science and resuscitation research]. / Deutsches Reanimationsregister : Wissenschaft und Reanimationsforschung.

Sudden death due to cardiac arrest represents one of the greatest challenges facing modern medicine, not only because of the massive number of cases involved but also because of its tremendous social and economic impact. For many years, the magic figure of 1 per 1000 inhabitants per year was generally accepted as an estimate of the annual incidence of sudden death in the industrialized world, with a survival rate of 6 %. This estimate was based on large numbers of published reports of local, regional, national and multinational experience in the management of cardiac arrest. Measuring the global incidence of cardiac arrest is challenging as many different definitions of patient populations are used. Randomized controlled trials (RCT) provide insights into the value of specific treatments or treatment strategies in a well-defined section of a population. Registries do not compete with clinical studies, but represent a useful supplement to them. Surveys and registries provide insights into the ways in which scientific findings and guidelines are being implemented in clinical practice. However, as with clinical studies, comprehensive preparations are needed in order to establish a registry. This is all the more decisive because not all of the questions that may arise are known at the time when the registry is established. The German resuscitation registry started in May 2007 and currently more than 230 paramedic services and hospitals take part. More than 45,000 cases of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest and in-hospital cardiac arrest are included. With this background the German resuscitation registry is one of the largest databases in emergency medicine in Germany. After 5 years of running the preclinical care dataset was revised in 2012. Data variables that reflect current or new treatment were added to the registry. The postresuscitation basic care and telephone cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) datasets were developed in 2012 and 2013 as well. The German resuscitation registry is an instrument of quality management and a research network. The registry documents the course in patients who have undergone resuscitation at the time points of first aid, further management and long-term outcome and it can therefore provide a complete presentation of the procedures carried out and the quality of the outcomes. In addition, important scientific questions can be answered from the database. For example, a score for benchmarking the outcome quality after out-of-hospital resuscitation, known as the return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) after cardiac arrest (RACA) score, has been developed. The registry is available for all emergency medical services (EMS) and hospitals in Germany and other German-speaking countries.

Differences between manual CPR and corpuls cpr in regard to quality and outcome: study protocol of the comparing observational multi-center prospective registry study on resuscitation (COMPRESS).

BACKGROUND: The effect of mechanical CPR is diversely described in the literature. Different mechanical CPR devices are available. The corpuls cpr is a new generation of piston-driven devices and was launched in 2015. The COMPRESS-trial analyzes quality of chest compression and CPR-related injuries in cases of mechanical CPR by the corpuls cpr and manual CPR. METHODS: This article describes the design and study protocol of the COMPRESS-trial. This observational multi-center study includes all patients who suffered an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) where CPR is attempted in four German emergency medical systems (EMS) between January 2020 and December 2022. EMS treatment, in-hospital-treatment and outcome are anonymously reported to the German Resuscitation Registry (GRR). This information is linked with data from the defibrillator, the feedback system and the mechanical CPR device for a complete dataset. Primary endpoint is chest compression quality (complete release, compression rate, compression depth, chest compression fraction, CPR-related injuries). Secondary endpoint is survival (return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), admission to hospital and survival to hospital discharge). The trial is sponsored by GS Elektromedizinische Geräte G. Stemple GmbH. DISCUSSION: This observational multi-center study will contribute to the evaluation of mechanical chest compression devices and to the efficacy and safety of the corpuls cpr. TRIAL REGISTRATION: DRKS, DRKS-ID DRKS00020819 . Registered 31 July 2020.

CaRdiac Arrest Survival Score (CRASS) - A tool to predict good neurological outcome after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.

AIM: The aim of this study was to develop a score to predict the outcome for patients brought to hospital following out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). METHODS: All patients recorded in the German Resuscitation Registry (GRR) who suffered OHCA 2010-2017, who had ROSC or ongoing CPR at hospital admission were included. The study population was divided into development (2010-2016: 7985) and validation dataset (2017: 1806). Binary logistic regression analysis was used to derive the score. The probability of hospital discharge with good neurological outcome was defined as 1/(1 + e-X), where X is the weighted sum of independent variables. RESULTS: The following variables were found to have a significant positive (+) or negative (-) impact: age 61-70 years (-0·5), 71-80 (-0·9), 81-90 (-1·3) and > = 91 (-2·3); initial PEA (-0·9) and asystole (-1·4); presumable trauma (-1·1); mechanical CPR (-0·3); application of adrenalin > 0 - < 2 mg (-1·1), 2 - <4 mg (-1·6), 4 - < 6 mg (-2·1), 6 - < 8 mg (-2·5) and > = 8 mg (-2·8); pre emergency status without previous disease (+0·5) or minor disease (+0·2); location at nursing home (-0·6), working place/school (+0·7), doctor's office (+0·7) and public place (+0·3); application of amiodarone (+0·4); hospital admission with ongoing CPR (-1·9) or normotension (+0·4); witnessed arrest (+0·6); time from collapse until start CPR 2 - < 10 min (-0·3) and > = 10 min (-0·5); duration of CPR <5 min (+0·6). The AUC in the development dataset was 0·88 (95% CI 0·87-0·89) and in the validation dataset 0·88 (95% CI 0·86-0·90). CONCLUSION: The CaRdiac Arrest Survival Score (CRASS) represents a tool for calculating the probability of survival with good neurological function for patients brought to hospital following OHCA.

When is a bystander not a bystander any more? A European survey.

OBJECTIVE: There is international variation in the rates of bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). 'Bystander CPR' is defined in the Utstein definitions, however, differences in interpretation may contribute to the variation reported. The aim of this cross-sectional survey was to understand how the term 'bystander CPR' is interpreted in Emergency Medical Service (EMS) across Europe, and to contribute to a better definition of 'bystander' for future reference. METHODS: During analysis of the EuReCa ONE study, uncertainty about the definition of a 'bystander' emerged. Sixty scenarios were developed, addressing the interpretation of 'bystander CPR'. An electronic version of the survey was sent to 27 EuReCa National Coordinators, who distributed it to EMS representatives in their countries. Results were descriptively analysed. RESULTS: 362 questionnaires were received from 23 countries. In scenarios where a layperson arrived on scene by chance and provided CPR, up to 95% of the participants agreed that 'bystander CPR' had been performed. In scenarios that included community response systems, firefighters and/or police personnel, the percentage of agreement that 'bystander CPR' had been performed ranged widely from 16% to 91%. Even in scenarios that explicitly matched examples provided in the Utstein template there was disagreement on the definition. CONCLUSION: In this survey, the interpretation of 'bystander CPR' varied, particularly when community response systems including laypersons, firefighters, and/or police personnel were involved. It is suggested that the definition of 'bystander CPR' should be revised to reflect changes in treatment of OHCA, and that CPR before arrival of EMS is more accurately described.

[Recommendations for extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (eCPR) : Consensus statement of DGIIN, DGK, DGTHG, DGfK, DGNI, DGAI, DIVI and GRC]. / Empfehlungen zur extrakorporalen kardiopulmonalen Reanimation (eCPR) : Konsensuspapier der DGIIN, DGK, DGTHG, DGfK, DGNI, DGAI, DIVI und GRC.

Extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (eCPR) may be considered as a rescue attempt for highly selected patients with refractory cardiac arrest and potentially reversible etiology. Currently there are no randomized, controlled studies on eCPR, and valid predictors of benefit and outcome which might guide the indication for eCPR are lacking. Currently selection criteria and procedures differ across hospitals and standardized algorithms are lacking. Based on expert opinion, the present consensus statement provides a proposal for a standardized treatment algorithm for eCPR.

Quality management in resuscitation--towards a European cardiac arrest registry (EuReCa).

BACKGROUND: Knowledge about the epidemiology of cardiac arrest in Europe is inadequate. AIM: To describe the first attempt to build up a Common European Registry of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, called EuReCa. METHODS: After approaching key persons in participating countries of the European Resuscitation Council, five countries or areas within countries (Belgium, Germany, Andalusia, North Holland, Sweden) agreed to participate. A standardized questionnaire including 28 items, that identified various aspects of resuscitation, was developed to explore the nature of the regional/national registries. This comprises inclusion criteria, data sources, and core data, as well as technical details of the structure of the databases. RESULTS: The participating registers represent a population of 35 million inhabitants in Europe. During 2008, 12,446 cardiac arrests were recorded. The structure as well as the level of complexity varied markedly between the 5 regional/national registries. The incidence of attempted resuscitation ranged between registers from 17 to 53 per 100,000 inhabitants each year whilst the number of patients admitted to hospital alive ranged from 5 to 18 per 100,000 inhabitants each year. Bystander CPR varied 3-fold from 20% to 60%. CONCLUSION: Five countries agreed to participate in an attempt to build up a common European Registry for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. These regional/national registries show a marked difference in terms of structure and complexity. A marked variation was found between countries in the number of reported resuscitation attempts, the number of patients brought to hospital alive, and the proportion that received bystander CPR. At present, we are unable to explain the reason for the variability but our first findings could be a 'wake-up-call' for building up a high quality registry that could provide answers to this and other key questions in relation to the management of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.