Critical Care Management of Patients After Cardiac Arrest: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association and Neurocritical Care Society.

The critical care management of patients after cardiac arrest is burdened by a lack of high-quality clinical studies and the resultant lack of high-certainty evidence. This results in limited practice guideline recommendations, which may lead to uncertainty and variability in management. Critical care management is crucial in patients after cardiac arrest and affects outcome. Although guidelines address some relevant topics (including temperature control and neurological prognostication of comatose survivors, 2 topics for which there are more robust clinical studies), many important subject areas have limited or nonexistent clinical studies, leading to the absence of guidelines or low-certainty evidence. The American Heart Association Emergency Cardiovascular Care Committee and the Neurocritical Care Society collaborated to address this gap by organizing an expert consensus panel and conference. Twenty-four experienced practitioners (including physicians, nurses, pharmacists, and a respiratory therapist) from multiple medical specialties, levels, institutions, and countries made up the panel. Topics were identified and prioritized by the panel and arranged by organ system to facilitate discussion, debate, and consensus building. Statements related to postarrest management were generated, and 80% agreement was required to approve a statement. Voting was anonymous and web based. Topics addressed include neurological, cardiac, pulmonary, hematological, infectious, gastrointestinal, endocrine, and general critical care management. Areas of uncertainty, areas for which no consensus was reached, and future research directions are also included. Until high-quality studies that inform practice guidelines in these areas are available, the expert panel consensus statements that are provided can advise clinicians on the critical care management of patients after cardiac arrest.

Temperature Management for Comatose Adult Survivors of Cardiac Arrest: A Science Advisory From the American Heart Association.

Targeted temperature management has been a cornerstone of post-cardiac arrest care for patients remaining unresponsive after return of spontaneous circulation since the initial trials in 2002 found that mild therapeutic hypothermia improves neurological outcome. The suggested temperature range expanded in 2015 in response to a large trial finding that outcomes were not better with treatment at 33° C compared with 36° C. In 2021, another large trial was published in which outcomes with temperature control at 33° C were not better than those of patients treated with a strategy of strict normothermia. On the basis of these new data, the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation and other organizations have altered their treatment recommendations for temperature management after cardiac arrest. The new American Heart Association guidelines on this topic will be introduced in a 2023 focused update. To provide guidance to clinicians while this focused update is forthcoming, the American Heart Association's Emergency Cardiovascular Care Committee convened a writing group to review the TTM2 trial (Hypothermia Versus Normothermia After Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest) in the context of other recent evidence and to present an opinion on how this trial may influence clinical practice. This science advisory was informed by review of the TTM2 trial, consideration of other recent influential studies, and discussion between cardiac arrest experts in the fields of cardiology, critical care, emergency medicine, and neurology. Conclusions presented in this advisory statement do not replace current guidelines but are intended to provide an expert opinion on novel literature that will be incorporated into future guidelines and suggest the opportunity for reassessment of current clinical practice.

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.

Thiamine for Renal Protection in Septic Shock (TRPSS): A Randomized, Placebo-controlled, Clinical Trial.

Rationale: Kidney injury is common and associated with worse outcomes in patients with septic shock. Mitochondrial resuscitation with thiamine (vitamin B1) may attenuate septic kidney injury. Objectives: To assess whether thiamine supplementation attenuates kidney injury in septic shock. Methods: The TRPSS (Thiamine for Renal Protection in Septic Shock) trial was a multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of thiamine versus placebo in septic shock. The primary outcome was change in serum creatinine between enrollment and 72 hours after enrollment. Measurements and Main Results: Eighty-eight patients were enrolled (42 patients received the intervention, and 46 received placebo). There was no significant between-groups difference in creatinine at 72 hours (mean difference, -0.57 mg/dl; 95% confidence interval, -1.18, 0.04; P = 0.07). There was no difference in receipt of kidney replacement therapy (14.3% vs. 21.7%, P = 0.34), acute kidney injury (as defined by stage 3 of the Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes acute kidney injury scale; 54.7% vs. 73.9%, P = 0.07), or mortality (35.7% vs. 54.3%, P = 0.14) between the thiamine and placebo groups. Patients who received thiamine had more ICU-free days (median [interquartile range]: 22.5 [0.0-25.0] vs. 0.0 [0.0-23.0], P < 0.01). In the thiamine-deficient cohort (27.4% of patients), there was no difference in rates of kidney failure (57.1% thiamine vs. 81.5% placebo) or in-hospital mortality (28.6% vs. 68.8%) between groups. Conclusions: In the TRPSS trial, there was no statistically significant difference in the primary outcome of change in creatinine over time. Patients who received thiamine had more ICU-free days, but there was no difference in other secondary outcomes. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03550794).

How Would You Resuscitate This Patient With Septic Shock? : Grand Rounds Discussion From Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center.

Sepsis is a potentially life-threatening systemic dysregulatory response to infection, and septic shock occurs when sepsis leads to systemic vasodilation and subsequent tissue hypoperfusion. The Surviving Sepsis Campaign published updated guidelines in 2021 on the management of sepsis and septic shock. Here, in the context of a patient with septic shock, 2 critical care specialists discuss and debate conditional guideline recommendations on using lactate to guide resuscitation, the use of balanced crystalloids versus normal saline, and the use of corticosteroids.

Critical Care Management of Patients After Cardiac Arrest: A Scientific Statement from the American Heart Association and Neurocritical Care Society.

The critical care management of patients after cardiac arrest is burdened by a lack of high-quality clinical studies and the resultant lack of high-certainty evidence. This results in limited practice guideline recommendations, which may lead to uncertainty and variability in management. Critical care management is crucial in patients after cardiac arrest and affects outcome. Although guidelines address some relevant topics (including temperature control and neurological prognostication of comatose survivors, 2 topics for which there are more robust clinical studies), many important subject areas have limited or nonexistent clinical studies, leading to the absence of guidelines or low-certainty evidence. The American Heart Association Emergency Cardiovascular Care Committee and the Neurocritical Care Society collaborated to address this gap by organizing an expert consensus panel and conference. Twenty-four experienced practitioners (including physicians, nurses, pharmacists, and a respiratory therapist) from multiple medical specialties, levels, institutions, and countries made up the panel. Topics were identified and prioritized by the panel and arranged by organ system to facilitate discussion, debate, and consensus building. Statements related to postarrest management were generated, and 80% agreement was required to approve a statement. Voting was anonymous and web based. Topics addressed include neurological, cardiac, pulmonary, hematological, infectious, gastrointestinal, endocrine, and general critical care management. Areas of uncertainty, areas for which no consensus was reached, and future research directions are also included. Until high-quality studies that inform practice guidelines in these areas are available, the expert panel consensus statements that are provided can advise clinicians on the critical care management of patients after cardiac arrest.

Thiamine Supplementation in Patients With Alcohol Use Disorder Presenting With Acute Critical Illness : A Nationwide Retrospective Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: Thiamine supplementation is recommended for patients with alcohol use disorder (AUD). The authors hypothesize that critically ill patients with AUD are commonly not given thiamine supplementation. OBJECTIVE: To describe thiamine supplementation incidence in patients with AUD and various critical illnesses (alcohol withdrawal, septic shock, traumatic brain injury [TBI], and diabetic ketoacidosis [DKA]) in the United States. DESIGN: Retrospective observational study. SETTING: Cerner Health Facts database. PATIENTS: Adult patients with a diagnosis of AUD who were admitted to the intensive care unit with alcohol withdrawal, septic shock, TBI, or DKA between 2010 and 2017. MEASUREMENTS: Incidence and predicted probability of thiamine supplementation in alcohol withdrawal and other critical illnesses. RESULTS: The study included 14 998 patients with AUD. Mean age was 52.2 years, 77% of participants were male, and in-hospital mortality was 9%. Overall, 7689 patients (51%) received thiamine supplementation. The incidence of thiamine supplementation was 59% for alcohol withdrawal, 26% for septic shock, 41% for TBI, and 24% for DKA. Most of those receiving thiamine (n = 3957 [52%]) received it within 12 hours of presentation in the emergency department. The predominant route of thiamine administration was enteral (n = 3119 [41%]). LIMITATION: Specific dosing and duration were not completely captured. CONCLUSION: Thiamine supplementation was not provided to almost half of all patients with AUD, raising a quality-of-care issue for this cohort. Supplementation was numerically less frequent in patients with septic shock, DKA, or TBI than in those with alcohol withdrawal. These data will be important for the design of quality improvement studies in critically ill patients with AUD. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Institutes of Health.

Efficacy of post-induction therapy for high-risk neuroblastoma patients with end-induction residual disease.

BACKGROUND: High-risk neuroblastoma patients with end-induction residual disease commonly receive post-induction therapy in an effort to increase survival by improving the response before autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT). The authors conducted a multicenter, retrospective study to investigate the efficacy of this approach. METHODS: Patients diagnosed between 2008 and 2018 without progressive disease with a partial response or worse at end-induction were stratified according to the post-induction treatment: 1) no additional therapy before ASCT (cohort 1), 2) post-induction "bridge" therapy before ASCT (cohort 2), and 3) post-induction therapy without ASCT (cohort 3). χ2 tests were used to compare patient characteristics. Three-year event-free survival (EFS) and overall survival (OS) were estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method and survival curves were compared by log-rank test. RESULTS: The study cohort consisted of 201 patients: cohort 1 (n = 123), cohort 2 (n = 51), and cohort 3 (n = 27). Although the end-induction response was better for cohort 1 than cohorts 2 and 3, the outcomes for cohorts 1 and 2 were not significantly different (P = .77 for EFS and P = .85 for OS). Inferior outcomes were observed for cohort 3 (P < .001 for EFS and P = .06 for OS). Among patients with end-induction stable metastatic disease, 3-year EFS was significantly improved for cohort 2 versus cohort 1 (P = .04). Cohort 3 patients with a complete response at metastatic sites after post-induction therapy had significantly better 3-year EFS than those with residual metastatic disease (P = .01). CONCLUSIONS: Prospective studies to confirm the benefits of bridge treatment and the prognostic significance of metastatic response observed in this study are warranted.

Cardiopulmonary resuscitation in special circumstances.

Cardiopulmonary resuscitation prioritises treatment for cardiac arrests from a primary cardiac cause, which make up the majority of treated cardiac arrests. Early chest compressions and, when indicated, a defibrillation shock from a bystander give the best chance of survival with a good neurological status. Cardiac arrest can also be caused by special circumstances, such as asphyxia, trauma, pulmonary embolism, accidental hypothermia, anaphylaxis, or COVID-19, and during pregnancy or perioperatively. Cardiac arrests in these circumstances represent an increasing proportion of all treated cardiac arrests, often have a preventable cause, and require additional interventions to correct a reversible cause during resuscitation. The evidence for treating these conditions is mostly of low or very low certainty and further studies are needed. Irrespective of the cause, treatments for cardiac arrest are time sensitive and most effective when given early-every minute counts.

Predictors of improvement in urinary incontinence in the postacute setting: A Canadian cohort study.

PURPOSE: To determine factors associated with improvement in urinary incontinence (UI) for long-stay postacute, complex continuing care (CCC) patients. DESIGN: A retrospective cohort investigation of patients in a CCC setting using data obtained from the Canadian Institute for Health Information's Continuing Care Reporting System collected with interRAI Minimum Data Set 2.0. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Individuals aged 18 years and older, were admitted to CCC hospitals in Ontario, Canada, between 2010 and 2018. METHODS: Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine the independent effects of predictors on UI improvement, for patients who were somewhat or completely incontinent on admission and therefore had the potential for improvement. RESULTS: The study cohort consisted of 18 584 patients, 74% (13 779) of which were somewhat or completely incontinent upon admission. Among those patients with potential for improvement, receiving bladder training, starting a new medication 90 days prior (odds ratio, OR: 1.54 [95% confidence interval, CI: 1.36-1.75]), and triggering the interRAI Urinary Incontinence Clinical Assessment Protocol to facilitate improvement (OR: 1.36 [95% CI: 1.08-1.71]) or to prevent decline (OR: 1.32 [95% CI: 1.13-1.53]) were the strongest predictors of improvement. Conversely, being totally dependent on others for transfer (OR: 0.62 [95% CI: 0.42-0.92]), is rarely or never understood (OR: 0.65 [95% CI: 0.50-0.85]), having a major comorbidity count of ≥3 (OR: 0.72 [95% CI: 0.59-0.88]), Parkinson's disease, OR: 0.77 (95% CI: 0.62-0.95), Alzheimer/other dementia, OR: 0.83 (95% CI: 0.74-0.93), and respiratory infections, OR: 0.57 (95% CI: 0.39-0.85) independently predicted less likelihood of improvement in UI. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Findings of this study suggest that improving physical function, including bed mobility, and providing bladder retraining have strong positive impacts on improvement in UI for postacute care patients. Evidence generated from this study provides useful care planning information for care providers in identifying patients and targeting the care that may lead to better success with the management of UI.

Part 7: Systems of Care: 2020 American Heart Association Guidelines for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care.

Survival after cardiac arrest requires an integrated system of people, training, equipment, and organizations working together to achieve a common goal. Part 7 of the 2020 American Heart Association Guidelines for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care focuses on systems of care, with an emphasis on elements that are relevant to a broad range of resuscitation situations. Previous systems of care guidelines have identified a Chain of Survival, beginning with prevention and early identification of cardiac arrest and proceeding through resuscitation to post-cardiac arrest care. This concept is reinforced by the addition of recovery as an important stage in cardiac arrest survival. Debriefing and other quality improvement strategies were previously mentioned and are now emphasized. Specific to out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, this Part contains recommendations about community initiatives to promote cardiac arrest recognition, cardiopulmonary resuscitation, public access defibrillation, mobile phone technologies to summon first responders, and an enhanced role for emergency telecommunicators. Germane to in-hospital cardiac arrest are recommendations about the recognition and stabilization of hospital patients at risk for developing cardiac arrest. This Part also includes recommendations about clinical debriefing, transport to specialized cardiac arrest centers, organ donation, and performance measurement across the continuum of resuscitation situations.

Part 2: Evidence Evaluation and Guidelines Development: 2020 American Heart Association Guidelines for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care.

The 2020 American Heart Association (AHA) Guidelines for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care is based on the extensive evidence evaluation performed in conjunction with the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation. The Adult Basic and Advanced Life Support, Pediatric Basic and Advanced Life Support, Neonatal Life Support, Resuscitation Education Science, and Systems of Care Writing Groups drafted, reviewed, and approved recommendations, assigning to each recommendation a Class of Recommendation (ie, strength) and Level of Evidence (ie, quality). The 2020 Guidelines are organized in knowledge chunks that are grouped into discrete modules of information on specific topics or management issues. The 2020 Guidelines underwent blinded peer review by subject matter experts and were also reviewed and approved for publication by the AHA Science Advisory and Coordinating Committee and the AHA Executive Committee. The AHA has rigorous conflict-of-interest policies and procedures to minimize the risk of bias or improper influence during development of the guidelines. Anyone involved in any part of the guideline development process disclosed all commercial relationships and other potential conflicts of interest.

Adult Advanced Life Support: 2020 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations.

This 2020 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations for advanced life support includes updates on multiple advanced life support topics addressed with 3 different types of reviews. Topics were prioritized on the basis of both recent interest within the resuscitation community and the amount of new evidence available since any previous review. Systematic reviews addressed higher-priority topics, and included double-sequential defibrillation, intravenous versus intraosseous route for drug administration during cardiac arrest, point-of-care echocardiography for intra-arrest prognostication, cardiac arrest caused by pulmonary embolism, postresuscitation oxygenation and ventilation, prophylactic antibiotics after resuscitation, postresuscitation seizure prophylaxis and treatment, and neuroprognostication. New or updated treatment recommendations on these topics are presented. Scoping reviews were conducted for anticipatory charging and monitoring of physiological parameters during cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Topics for which systematic reviews and new Consensuses on Science With Treatment Recommendations were completed since 2015 are also summarized here. All remaining topics reviewed were addressed with evidence updates to identify any new evidence and to help determine which topics should be the highest priority for systematic reviews in the next 1 to 2 years.

Comparison between Patients Hospitalized with Influenza and COVID-19 at a Tertiary Care Center.

BACKGROUND: Widespread reports suggest the characteristics and disease course of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and influenza differ, yet detailed comparisons of their clinical manifestations are lacking. OBJECTIVE: Comparison of the epidemiology and clinical characteristics of COVID-19 patients during the pandemic with those of influenza patients in previous influenza seasons at the same hospital DESIGN: Admission rates, clinical measurements, and clinical outcomes from confirmed COVID-19 cases between March 1 and April 30, 2020, were compared with those from confirmed influenza cases in the previous five influenza seasons (8 months each) beginning September 1, 2014. SETTING: Large tertiary care teaching hospital in Boston, MA PARTICIPANTS: Laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 and influenza inpatients MEASUREMENTS: Patient demographics and medical history, mortality, incidence and duration of mechanical ventilation, incidences of vasopressor support and renal replacement therapy, and hospital and intensive care admissions. RESULTS: Data was abstracted from medical records of 1052 influenza patients and 582 COVID-19 patients. An average of 210 hospital admissions for influenza occurred per 8-month season compared to 582 COVID-19 admissions over 2 months. The median weekly number of COVID-19 patients requiring mechanical ventilation was 17 (IQR: 4, 34) compared to a weekly median of 1 (IQR: 0, 2) influenza patient (p=0.001). COVID-19 patients were significantly more likely to require mechanical ventilation (31% vs 8%) and had significantly higher mortality (20% vs. 3%; p<0.001 for all). Relatively more COVID-19 patients on mechanical ventilation lacked pre-existing conditions compared with mechanically ventilated influenza patients (25% vs 4%, p<0.001). Pneumonia/ARDS secondary to the virus was the predominant cause of mechanical ventilation in COVID-19 patients (94%) as opposed to influenza (56%). LIMITATION: This is a single-center study which could limit generalization. CONCLUSION: COVID-19 resulted in more weekly hospitalizations, higher morbidity, and higher mortality than influenza at the same hospital.

Advanced cardiac life support: lessons from recent trials on how to move forward.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This review discusses potential reasons why many recent large trials in advanced cardiac life support have failed to demonstrate a difference in outcomes and suggests some points for consideration in planning future trials. RECENT FINDINGS: The ARREST trial, a small controlled trial studying the effect of intra-arrest extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO, or E-CPR) on survival and functional outcome in patients with refractory ventricular fibrillation cardiac arrest, was stopped after 30 patients for benefit. This stands in contrast to several recent trials enrolling up to several thousand patients and finding no difference. Three ways in which the ARREST trial approach differed from that of other recent trials, and how those differences may contribute to the possibility of detecting the benefit of an intervention, are discussed. SUMMARY: Refining our ability to select patients with potential to benefit from an intervention, providing those interventions earlier, and tailoring the specifics of an intervention to the individual patient all may be important in design of cardiac arrest trials, as illustrated by the large effect seen in the ARREST trial.

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.

2019 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 has initiated a continuous review of new, peer-reviewed, published cardiopulmonary resuscitation science. This is the third annual summary of the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations. It addresses the most recent published resuscitation evidence reviewed by International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation Task Force science experts. This summary addresses the role of cardiac arrest centers and dispatcher-assisted cardiopulmonary resuscitation, the role of extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation in adults and children, vasopressors in adults, advanced airway interventions in adults and children, targeted temperature management in children after cardiac arrest, initial oxygen concentration during resuscitation of newborns, and interventions for presyncope by first aid providers. Members from 6 International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation task forces have assessed, discussed, and debated the certainty of the evidence on the basis of the 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. The task forces also listed priority knowledge gaps for further research.

The limitations of evidence: increasing data and increasing doubt in the treatment of cardiac arrest.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Cardiac arrest is one of the most challenging disease processes to study with clinical trials due to the emergent and unpredictable nature of these events and complexity of the patient population. In recent years, there has been a major push to complete more large, multicentre trials. In many cases, however, there remains little certainty on what treatments are most efficacious, in spite of the recent increase in evidence. This review was undertaken to address some of the unique barriers to address answering research questions in cardiac arrest with clinical trials. RECENT FINDINGS: Multiple examples of trials that have failed to reach definitive conclusions, and potential reasons for this, are discussed. SUMMARY: Trials on multiple major cardiac arrest interventions, including temperature management, drugs during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and airway management, now have high-quality randomized trials, but significant questions on efficacy and best practices remain. Common pitfalls and reasons for this are explored, including heterogeneity of patients and providers, variability in exact interventions studied, delay in starting research interventions and lack of consistency across systems in decision making around appropriateness for resuscitation.

Identification, collection, and reporting of harms among non-industry-sponsored randomized clinical trials of pharmacologic interventions in the critically ill population: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Prescribing pharmacologic therapies for critically ill patients requires a careful balancing of risks and benefits. Defining, monitoring, and reporting harms that occur in clinical trials conducted in critically ill populations, however, is challenging given that the natural history of most critical illnesses includes progressive multiple organ failure and death. In this study, we assessed harms reporting in clinical trials performed in critically ill populations. METHODS: Randomized, non-industry-sponsored, human clinical trials of pharmacologic interventions in adult critically ill populations published between 2015 and 2018 in high-impact journals were included in this systematic review. Harms data, adherence to Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) harms reporting guidelines, and restrictions on harms reporting were recorded. RESULTS: A total of 707 abstracts were screened with 40 trials ultimately being included in the analysis. Included trials represent 28,636 randomized patients with a median of 292 (IQR 100-546) patients per trial. The most common disease states were general critical care (33%) and sepsis (28%). Of 18 included CONSORT items, the median number met was 12 (IQR 9, 14). The most commonly missed items were adverse event (AE) severity grading definitions and AE attribution (relationship of AE to study drug), which were only reported in 35 and 38% of manuscripts, respectively. Half of the manuscripts (48%) provided definitions for recorded AEs. There were 5 studies investigating the effects of corticosteroids in sepsis, with the number of AEs reported per analyzed patient ranging from 0.01 to 1.89. AE definitions in studies of similar/equivalent interventions often varied substantially. Study protocols were available for 30/40 (75%) of studies, with 13 (43%) of those not providing any guidance regarding AE attribution. CONCLUSIONS: Randomized trials of pharmacologic interventions conducted in critically ill populations and published in high impact journals often fail to adequately describe AE definitions, severity, attribution, and collection procedures. Among trials of similar interventions in comparable populations, variation in AE collection and reporting procedures is substantial. These factors may limit a clinician's ability to accurately balance the potential benefits and harms of an intervention.