Improving vasopressor use in cardiac arrest.

The Chain of Survival highlights the effectiveness of early recognition of cardiac arrest and call for help, early cardiopulmonary resuscitation and early defibrillation. Most patients, however, remain in cardiac arrest despite these interventions. Drug treatments, particularly the use of vasopressors, have been included in resuscitation algorithms since their inception. This narrative review describes the current evidence base for vasopressors and reports that adrenaline (1 mg) is highly effective at achieving return of spontaneous circulation (number needed to treat 4) but is less effective on long-term outcomes (survival to 30 days, number needed to treat 111) with uncertain effects on survival with a favourable neurological outcome. Randomised trials evaluating vasopressin, either as an alternative to or in addition to adrenaline, and high-dose adrenaline have failed to find evidence of improved long-term outcomes. There is a need for future trials to evaluate the interaction between steroids and vasopressin. Evidence for other vasopressors (e.g. noradrenaline, phenylephedrine) is insufficient to support or refute their use. The use of intravenous calcium chloride as a routine intervention in out of hospital cardiac arrest is not associated with benefit and may cause harm. The optimal route for vascular access between peripheral intravenous versus intraosseous routes is currently the subject of two large randomised trials. Intracardiac, endobronchial, and intramuscular routes are not recommended. Central venous administration should be limited to patients where an existing central venous catheter is in situ and patent.

Why, when and how do secondary-care clinicians have emergency care and treatment planning conversations? Qualitative findings from the ReSPECT Evaluation study.

BACKGROUND: The Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment (ReSPECT) is an emergency care and treatment planning (ECTP) process, developed to offer a patient-centred approach to deciding about and recording treatment recommendations. Conversations between clinicians and patients or their representatives are central to the ReSPECT process. This study aims to understand why, when, and how ReSPECT conversations unfold in practice. METHODS: ReSPECT conversations were observed in hospitals within six acute National Health Service (NHS) trusts in England; the clinicians who conducted these conversations were interviewed. Following observation-based thematic analysis, five ReSPECT conversation types were identified: resuscitation and escalation; confirmation of decision; bad news; palliative care; and clinical decision. Interview-based thematic analysis examined the reasons and prompts for each conversation type, and the level of detail and patient engagement in these different conversations. RESULTS: Whereas resuscitation and escalation conversations concerned possible futures, palliative care and bad news conversations responded to present-tense changes. Conversations were timed to respond to organisational, clinical, and patient/relative prompts. While bad news and palliative care conversations included detailed discussions of treatment options beyond CPR, this varied in other conversation types. ReSPECT conversations varied in doctors' engagement with patient/relative preferences, with only palliative care conversations consistently including an open-ended approach. CONCLUSIONS: While ReSPECT supports holistic, person-centred, anticipatory decision-making in some situations, a gap remains between the ReSPECT's aims and their implementation in practice. Promoting an understanding and valuing of the aims of ReSPECT among clinicians, supported by appropriate training and structural support, will enhance ReSPECT conversations.

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

This 2020 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations on basic life support summarizes evidence evaluations performed for 22 topics that were prioritized by the Basic Life Support Task Force of the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation. The evidence reviews include 16 systematic reviews, 5 scoping reviews, and 1 evidence update. Per agreement within the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation, new or revised treatment recommendations were only made after a systematic review. Systematic reviews were performed for the following topics: dispatch diagnosis of cardiac arrest, use of a firm surface for CPR, sequence for starting CPR (compressions-airway-breaths versus airway-breaths-compressions), CPR before calling for help, duration of CPR cycles, hand position during compressions, rhythm check timing, feedback for CPR quality, alternative techniques, public access automated external defibrillator programs, analysis of rhythm during chest compressions, CPR before defibrillation, removal of foreign-body airway obstruction, resuscitation care for suspected opioid-associated emergencies, drowning, and harm from CPR to victims not in cardiac arrest. The topics that resulted in the most extensive task force discussions included CPR during transport, CPR before calling for help, resuscitation care for suspected opioid-associated emergencies, feedback for CPR quality, and analysis of rhythm during chest compressions. After discussion of the scoping reviews and the evidence update, the task force prioritized several topics for new systematic reviews.

Protocolised non-invasive compared with invasive weaning from mechanical ventilation for adults in intensive care: the Breathe RCT.

BACKGROUND: Invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) is a life-saving intervention. Following resolution of the condition that necessitated IMV, a spontaneous breathing trial (SBT) is used to determine patient readiness for IMV discontinuation. In patients who fail one or more SBTs, there is uncertainty as to the optimum management strategy. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of using non-invasive ventilation (NIV) as an intermediate step in the protocolised weaning of patients from IMV. DESIGN: Pragmatic, open-label, parallel-group randomised controlled trial, with cost-effectiveness analysis. SETTING: A total of 51 critical care units across the UK. PARTICIPANTS: Adult intensive care patients who had received IMV for at least 48 hours, who were categorised as ready to wean from ventilation, and who failed a SBT. INTERVENTIONS: Control group (invasive weaning): patients continued to receive IMV with daily SBTs. A weaning protocol was used to wean pressure support based on the patient's condition. Intervention group (non-invasive weaning): patients were extubated to NIV. A weaning protocol was used to wean inspiratory positive airway pressure, based on the patient's condition. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was time to liberation from ventilation. Secondary outcome measures included mortality, duration of IMV, proportion of patients receiving antibiotics for a presumed respiratory infection and health-related quality of life. RESULTS: A total of 364 patients (invasive weaning, n = 182; non-invasive weaning, n = 182) were randomised. Groups were well matched at baseline. There was no difference between the invasive weaning and non-invasive weaning groups in median time to liberation from ventilation {invasive weaning 108 hours [interquartile range (IQR) 57-351 hours] vs. non-invasive weaning 104.3 hours [IQR 34.5-297 hours]; hazard ratio 1.1, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.89 to 1.39; p = 0.352}. There was also no difference in mortality between groups at any time point. Patients in the non-invasive weaning group had fewer IMV days [invasive weaning 4 days (IQR 2-11 days) vs. non-invasive weaning 1 day (IQR 0-7 days); adjusted mean difference -3.1 days, 95% CI -5.75 to -0.51 days]. In addition, fewer non-invasive weaning patients required antibiotics for a respiratory infection [odds ratio (OR) 0.60, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.00; p = 0.048]. A higher proportion of non-invasive weaning patients required reintubation than those in the invasive weaning group (OR 2.00, 95% CI 1.27 to 3.24). The within-trial economic evaluation showed that NIV was associated with a lower net cost and a higher net effect, and was dominant in health economic terms. The probability that NIV was cost-effective was estimated at 0.58 at a cost-effectiveness threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year. CONCLUSIONS: A protocolised non-invasive weaning strategy did not reduce time to liberation from ventilation. However, patients who underwent non-invasive weaning had fewer days requiring IMV and required fewer antibiotics for respiratory infections. FUTURE WORK: In patients who fail a SBT, which factors predict an adverse outcome (reintubation, tracheostomy, death) if extubated and weaned using NIV? TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN15635197. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 23, No. 48. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Patients who become very unwell may require help from a breathing machine. This requires the patient to be given drugs to put them to sleep (sedation) and have a tube placed through their mouth directly into the windpipe (tube ventilation). This can be life-saving, but may cause harm if used for long periods of time. Non-invasive ventilation (mask ventilation) provides breathing support through a mask that covers the face. Mask ventilation has several advantages over tube ventilation, such as less need for sedation, and it enables the patient to cough and communicate. In previous studies, switching patients from tube to mask ventilation when they start to get better seemed to improve survival rates and reduce complications. The Breathe trial tested if using a protocol to remove tube ventilation and replace it with mask ventilation is better than continuing with tube ventilation until the patient no longer needs breathing machine support. The trial recruited 364 patients. Half of these patients were randomly selected to have the tube removed and replaced with mask ventilation and half were randomly selected to continue with tube ventilation until they no longer needed breathing machine support. The mask group spent 3 fewer days receiving tube ventilation, although the overall time needing breathing machine help (mask and tube) did not change. Fewer patients in the mask group needed antibiotics for chest infections. After removing the tube, twice as many patients needed the tube again in the mask group as in the tube group. There were no differences between the groups in the number of adverse (harm) events or the number of patients who survived to leave hospital. Mask ventilation was no more expensive than tube ventilation. In conclusion, mask ventilation may be an effective alternative to continued tube ventilation when patients start to get better in intensive care.

Vitamin D to Prevent Lung Injury Following Esophagectomy-A Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVES: Observational studies suggest an association between vitamin D deficiency and adverse outcomes of critical illness and identify it as a potential risk factor for the development of lung injury. To determine whether preoperative administration of oral high-dose cholecalciferol ameliorates early acute lung injury postoperatively in adults undergoing elective esophagectomy. DESIGN: A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial. SETTING: Three large U.K. university hospitals. PATIENTS: Seventy-nine adult patients undergoing elective esophagectomy were randomized. INTERVENTIONS: A single oral preoperative (3-14 d) dose of 7.5 mg (300,000 IU; 15 mL) cholecalciferol or matched placebo. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Primary outcome was change in extravascular lung water index at the end of esophagectomy. Secondary outcomes included PaO2:FIO2 ratio, development of lung injury, ventilator and organ-failure free days, 28 and 90 day survival, safety of cholecalciferol supplementation, plasma vitamin D status (25(OH)D, 1,25(OH)2D, and vitamin D-binding protein), pulmonary vascular permeability index, and extravascular lung water index day 1 postoperatively. An exploratory study measured biomarkers of alveolar-capillary inflammation and injury. Forty patients were randomized to cholecalciferol and 39 to placebo. There was no significant change in extravascular lung water index at the end of the operation between treatment groups (placebo median 1.0 [interquartile range, 0.4-1.8] vs cholecalciferol median 0.4 mL/kg [interquartile range, 0.4-1.2 mL/kg]; p = 0.059). Median pulmonary vascular permeability index values were significantly lower in the cholecalciferol treatment group (placebo 0.4 [interquartile range, 0-0.7] vs cholecalciferol 0.1 [interquartile range, -0.15 to -0.35]; p = 0.027). Cholecalciferol treatment effectively increased 25(OH)D concentrations, but surgery resulted in a decrease in 25(OH)D concentrations at day 3 in both arms. There was no difference in clinical outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: High-dose preoperative treatment with oral cholecalciferol was effective at increasing 25(OH)D concentrations and reduced changes in postoperative pulmonary vascular permeability index, but not extravascular lung water index.

Mechanical versus manual chest compressions in the treatment of in-hospital cardiac arrest patients in a non-shockable rhythm: a randomised controlled feasibility trial (COMPRESS-RCT).

BACKGROUND: Mechanical chest compression devices consistently deliver high-quality chest compressions. Small very low-quality studies suggest mechanical devices may be effective as an alternative to manual chest compressions in the treatment of adult in-hospital cardiac arrest patients. The aim of this feasibility trial is to assess the feasibility of conducting an effectiveness trial in this patient population. METHODS: COMPRESS-RCT is a multi-centre parallel group feasibility randomised controlled trial, designed to assess the feasibility of undertaking an effectiveness to compare the effect of mechanical chest compressions with manual chest compressions on 30-day survival following in-hospital cardiac arrest. Over approximately two years, 330 adult patients who sustain an in-hospital cardiac arrest and are in a non-shockable rhythm will be randomised in a 3:1 ratio to receive ongoing treatment with a mechanical chest compression device (LUCAS 2/3, Jolife AB/Stryker, Lund, Sweden) or continued manual chest compressions. It is intended that recruitment will occur on a 24/7 basis by the clinical cardiac arrest team. The primary study outcome is the proportion of eligible participants randomised in the study during site operational recruitment hours. Participants will be enrolled using a model of deferred consent, with consent for follow-up sought from patients or their consultee in those that survive the cardiac arrest event. The trial will have an embedded qualitative study, in which we will conduct semi-structured interviews with hospital staff to explore facilitators and barriers to study recruitment. DISCUSSION: The findings of COMPRESS-RCT will provide important information about the deliverability of an effectiveness trial to evaluate the effect on 30-day mortality of routine use of mechanical chest compression devices in adult in-hospital cardiac arrest patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN38139840 , date of registration 9th January 2017.

2017 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations Summary.

The International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation has initiated a near-continuous review of cardiopulmonary resuscitation science that replaces the previous 5-year cyclic batch-and-queue approach process. This is the first of an annual series of International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations summary articles that will include the cardiopulmonary resuscitation science reviewed by the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation in the previous year. The review this year includes 5 basic life support and 1 pediatric Consensuses on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations. Each of these includes a summary of the science and its quality based on Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation criteria and treatment recommendations. Insights into the deliberations of the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation task force members are provided in Values and Preferences sections. Finally, the task force members have prioritized and listed the top 3 knowledge gaps for each population, intervention, comparator, and outcome question.

2017 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations Summary.

The International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation has initiated a near-continuous review of cardiopulmonary resuscitation science that replaces the previous 5-year cyclic batch-and-queue approach process. This is the first of an annual series of International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations summary articles that will include the cardiopulmonary resuscitation science reviewed by the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation in the previous year. The review this year includes 5 basic life support and 1 paediatric Consensuses on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations. Each of these includes a summary of the science and its quality based on Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation criteria and treatment recommendations. Insights into the deliberations of the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation task force members are provided in Values and Preferences sections. Finally, the task force members have prioritised and listed the top 3 knowledge gaps for each population, intervention, comparator, and outcome question.

Part 3: Adult Basic Life Support and Automated External Defibrillation: 2015 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations.

This review comprises the most extensive literature search and evidence evaluation to date on the most important international BLS interventions, diagnostics, and prognostic factors for cardiac arrest victims. It reemphasizes that the critical lifesaving steps of BLS are (1) prevention, (2) immediate recognition and activation of the emergency response system, (3) early high-quality CPR, and (4) rapid defibrillation for shockable rhythms. Highlights in prevention indicate the rational and judicious deployment of search-and-rescue operations in drowning victims and the importance of education on opioid-associated emergencies. Other 2015 highlights in recognition and activation include the critical role of dispatcher recognition and dispatch-assisted chest compressions, which has been demonstrated in multiple international jurisdictions with consistent improvements in cardiac arrest survival. Similar to the 2010 ILCOR BLS treatment recommendations, the importance of high quality was reemphasized across all measures of CPR quality: rate, depth, recoil, and minimal chest compression pauses, with a universal understanding that we all should be providing chest compressions to all victims of cardiac arrest. This review continued to focus on the interface of BLS sequencing and ensuring high-quality CPR with other important BLS interventions, such as ventilation and defibrillation. In addition, this consensus statement highlights the importance of EMS systems, which employ bundles of care focusing on providing high-quality chest compressions while extricating the patient from the scene to the next level of care. Highlights in defibrillation indicate the global importance of increasing the number of sites with public-access defibrillation programs. Whereas the 2010 ILCOR Consensus on Science provided important direction for the "what" in resuscitation (ie, what to do), the 2015 consensus has begun with the GRADE methodology to provide direction for the quality of resuscitation. We hope that resuscitation councils and other stakeholders will be able to translate this body of knowledge of international consensus statements to build their own effective resuscitation guidelines.

Evolution, safety and efficacy of targeted temperature management after pediatric cardiac arrest.

BACKGROUND: It is unknown whether targeted temperature management (TTM) improves survival after pediatric out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). The aim of this study was to assess the evolution, safety and efficacy of TTM (32-34 °C) compared to standard temperature management (STM) (<38 °C). METHODS: Retrospective, single center cohort study. Patients aged >one day up to 16 years, admitted to a UK Paediatric Intensive Care Unit (PICU) after OHCA (January 2004-December 2010). Primary outcome was survival to hospital discharge; efficacy and safety outcomes included: application of TTM, physiological, hematological and biochemical side effects. RESULTS: Seventy-three patients were included. Thirty-eight patients (52%) received TTM (32-34 °C). Prior to ILCOR guidance adoption in January 2007, TTM was used infrequently (4/25; 16%). Following adoption, TTM (32-34 °C) use increased significantly (34/48; 71% Chi(2); p < 0.0001). TTM (32-34 °C) and STM (<38 °C) groups were similar at baseline. TTM (32-34 °C) was associated with bradycardia and hypotension compared to STM (<38 °C). TTM (32-34 °C) reduced episodes of hyperthermia (>38 °C) in the 1st 24h; however, excessive hypothermia (<32 °C) and hyperthermia (>38 °C) occurred in both groups up to 72 h, and all patients (n = 11) experiencing temperature <32 °C died. The study was underpowered to determine a difference in hospital survival (34% (TTM (32-34 °C)) versus 23% (STM (<38 °C)); p = 0.284). However, the TTM (32-34 °C) group had a significantly longer PICU length of stay. CONCLUSIONS: TTM (32-34 °C) was feasible but associated with bradycardia, hypotension, and increased length of stay in PICU. Temperature <32 °C had a universally grave prognosis. Larger studies are required to assess effect on survival.

Vitamin D to prevent acute lung injury following oesophagectomy (VINDALOO): study protocol for a randomised placebo controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Acute lung injury occurs in approximately 25% to 30% of subjects undergoing oesophagectomy. Experimental studies suggest that treatment with vitamin D may prevent the development of acute lung injury by decreasing inflammatory cytokine release, enhancing lung epithelial repair and protecting alveolar capillary barrier function. METHODS/DESIGN: The 'Vitamin D to prevent lung injury following oesophagectomy trial' is a multi-centre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. The aim of the trial is to determine in patients undergoing elective transthoracic oesophagectomy, if pre-treatment with a single oral dose of vitamin D3 (300,000 IU (7.5 mg) cholecalciferol in oily solution administered seven days pre-operatively) compared to placebo affects biomarkers of early acute lung injury and other clinical outcomes. The primary outcome will be change in extravascular lung water index measured by PiCCO® transpulmonary thermodilution catheter at the end of the oesophagectomy. The trial secondary outcomes are clinical markers indicative of lung injury: PaO2:FiO2 ratio, oxygenation index; development of acute lung injury to day 28; duration of ventilation and organ failure; survival; safety and tolerability of vitamin D supplementation; plasma indices of endothelial and alveolar epithelial function/injury, plasma inflammatory response and plasma vitamin D status. The study aims to recruit 80 patients from three UK centres. DISCUSSION: This study will ascertain whether vitamin D replacement alters biomarkers of lung damage following oesophagectomy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN27673620.