Standardized Definitions for Cardiogenic Shock Research and Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices: Scientific Expert Panel From the Shock Academic Research Consortium (SHARC).

The Shock Academic Research Consortium is a multi-stakeholder group, including representatives from the US Food and Drug Administration and other government agencies, industry, and payers, convened to develop pragmatic consensus definitions useful for the evaluation of clinical trials enrolling patients with cardiogenic shock, including trials evaluating mechanical circulatory support devices. Several in-person and virtual meetings were convened between 2020 and 2022 to discuss the need for developing the standardized definitions required for evaluation of mechanical circulatory support devices in clinical trials for cardiogenic shock patients. The expert panel identified key concepts and topics by performing literature reviews, including previous clinical trials, while recognizing current challenges and the need to advance evidence-based practice and statistical analysis to support future clinical trials. For each category, a lead (primary) author was assigned to perform a literature search and draft a proposed definition, which was presented to the subgroup. These definitions were further modified after feedback from the expert panel meetings until a consensus was reached. This manuscript summarizes the expert panel recommendations focused on outcome definitions, including efficacy and safety.

The design of the PRINCESS 2 trial: A randomized trial to study the impact of ultrafast hypothermia on complete neurologic recovery after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest with initial shockable rhythm.

BACKGROUND: Delayed hypothermia, initiated after hospital arrival, several hours after cardiac arrest with 8-10 hours to reach the target temperature, is likely to have limited impact on overall survival. However, the effect of ultrafast hypothermia, i.e., delivered intra-arrest or immediately after return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), on functional neurologic outcome after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) is unclear. In two prior trials, prehospital trans-nasal evaporative intra-arrest cooling was safe, feasible and reduced time to target temperature compared to delayed cooling. Both studies showed trends towards improved neurologic recovery in patients with shockable rhythms. The aim of the PRINCESS2-study is to assess whether cooling, initiated either intra-arrest or immediately after ROSC, followed by in-hospital hypothermia, significantly increases survival with complete neurologic recovery as compared to standard normothermia care, in OHCA patients with shockable rhythms. METHODS/DESIGN: In this investigator-initiated, randomized, controlled trial, the emergency medical services (EMS) will randomize patients at the scene of cardiac arrest to either trans-nasal cooling within 20 minutes from EMS arrival with subsequent hypothermia at 33°C for 24 hours after hospital admission (intervention), or to standard of care with no prehospital or in-hospital cooling (control). Fever (>37,7°C) will be avoided for the first 72 hours in both groups. All patients will receive post resuscitation care and withdrawal of life support procedures according to current guidelines. Primary outcome is survival with complete neurologic recovery at 90 days, defined as modified Rankin scale (mRS) 0-1. Key secondary outcomes include survival to hospital discharge, survival at 90 days and mRS 0-3 at 90 days. In total, 1022 patients are required to detect an absolute difference of 9% (from 45 to 54%) in survival with neurologic recovery (80% power and one-sided α=0,025, ß=0,2) and assuming 2,5% lost to follow-up. Recruitment starts in Q1 2024 and we expect maximum enrolment to be achieved during Q4 2024 at 20-25 European and US sites. DISCUSSION: This trial will assess the impact of ultrafast hypothermia applied on the scene of cardiac arrest, as compared to normothermia, on 90-day survival with complete neurologic recovery in OHCA patients with initial shockable rhythm. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT06025123.

Supraglottic Airway Versus Tracheal Intubation for Airway Management in Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest: A Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis, and Trial Sequential Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

OBJECTIVES: Given the uncertainty regarding the optimal approach for airway management for adult patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA), we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the use of supraglottic airways (SGAs) with tracheal intubation for initial airway management in OHCA. DATA SOURCES: We searched MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, as well as unpublished sources, from inception to February 7, 2023. STUDY SELECTION: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of adult OHCA patients randomized to SGA compared with tracheal intubation for initial prehospital airway management. DATA EXTRACTION: Reviewers screened abstracts, full texts, and extracted data independently and in duplicate. We pooled data using a random-effects model. We used the modified Cochrane risk of bias 2 tool and assessed certainty of evidence using the Grading Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. We preregistered the protocol on PROSPERO (CRD42022342935). DATA SYNTHESIS: We included four RCTs ( n = 13,412 patients). Compared with tracheal intubation , SGA use probably increases return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) (relative risk [RR] 1.09; 95% CI, 1.02-1.15; moderate certainty) and leads to a faster time to airway placement (mean difference 2.5 min less; 95% CI, 1.6-3.4 min less; high certainty). SGA use may have no effect on survival at longest follow-up (RR 1.06; 95% CI, 0.84-1.34; low certainty), has an uncertain effect on survival with good functional outcome (RR 1.11; 95% CI, 0.82-1.50; very low certainty), and may have no effect on risk of aspiration (RR 1.04; 95% CI, 0.94 to 1.16; low certainty). CONCLUSIONS: In adult patients with OHCA, compared with tracheal intubation, the use of SGA for initial airway management probably leads to more ROSC, and faster time to airway placement, but may have no effect on longer-term survival outcomes or aspiration events.

COVID-19 Booster Vaccine Hesitancy in the Emergency Department.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Little is known about COVID-19 booster vaccine hesitancy. We sought to determine the uptake of booster vaccines, as well as the prevalence of and reasons for booster hesitancy in emergency department (ED) patients. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional survey study of adult patients at 5 safety-net hospital EDs in 4 US cities from mid-January to mid-July 2022. Participants were fluent in English or Spanish and had received at least one COVID-19 vaccine. We assessed the following parameters: (1) the prevalence of nonboosted status and reasons for not getting a booster; (2) the prevalence of booster vaccine hesitancy and reasons for hesitancy; and (3) the association of hesitancy with demographic variables. RESULTS: Of 802 participants, 373 (47%) were women, 478 (60%) were non-White, 182 (23%) lacked primary care, 110 (14%) primarily spoke Spanish, and 370 (46%) were publicly insured. Of the 771 participants who completed their primary series, 316 (41%) had not received a booster vaccine; the primary reason for nonreceipt was lack of opportunity (38%). Of the nonboosted participants, 179 (57%) expressed hesitancy, citing need for more information (25%), concerns about side effects (24%), and the belief that a booster was unnecessary after the initial series (20%). In the multivariable analysis, Asian participants were less likely to be booster hesitant than White participants (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.21, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.05 to 0.93), non-English-speaking participants were more likely to be booster hesitant than English-speaking participants (aOR 2.35, 95% CI 1.49 to 3.71), and Republican participants were more likely to be booster hesitant than Democrat participants (aOR 6.07, 95% CI 4.21 to 8.75). CONCLUSION: Of almost half of this urban ED population who had not received a COVID-19 booster vaccine, more than one third stated that lack of opportunity to receive one was the primary reason. Furthermore, more than half of the nonboosted participants were booster hesitant, with many expressing concerns or a desire for more information that may be addressed with booster vaccine education.

Association of Advanced Airway Insertion Timing and Outcomes After Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: While often prioritized in the resuscitation of patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, the optimal timing of advanced airway insertion is unknown. We evaluated the association between the timing of advanced airway (laryngeal tube and endotracheal intubation) insertion attempt and survival to hospital discharge in adult out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. METHODS: We performed a secondary analysis of the Pragmatic Airway Resuscitation Trial (PART), a clinical trial comparing the effects of laryngeal tube and endotracheal intubation on outcomes after adult out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. We stratified the cohort by randomized airway strategy (laryngeal tube or endotracheal intubation). Within each subset, we defined a time-dependent propensity score using patients, arrest, and emergency medical services systems characteristics. Using the propensity score, we matched each patient receiving an initial attempt of laryngeal tube or endotracheal intubation with a patient at risk of receiving laryngeal tube or endotracheal intubation attempt within the same minute. RESULTS: Of 2,146 eligible patients, 1,091 (50.8%) and 1,055 (49.2%) were assigned to initial laryngeal tube and endotracheal intubation strategies, respectively. In the propensity score-matched cohort, timing of laryngeal tube insertion attempt was not associated with survival to hospital discharge: 0 to lesser than 5 minutes (risk ratio [RR]=1.35, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.53 to 3.44); 5 to lesser than10 minutes (RR=1.07, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.73); 10 to lesser than 15 minutes (RR=1.17, 95% CI 0.60 to 2.31); or 15 to lesser than 20 minutes (RR=2.09, 95% CI 0.35 to 12.47) after advanced life support arrival. Timing of endotracheal intubation attempt was also not associated with survival: 0 to lesser than 5 minutes (RR=0.50, 95% CI 0.05 to 4.87); 5 to lesser than10 minutes (RR=1.20, 95% CI 0.51 to 2.81); 10 to lesser than15 minutes (RR=1.03, 95% CI 0.49 to 2.14); 15 to lesser than 20 minutes (RR=0.85, 95% CI 0.30 to 2.42); or more than/equal to 20 minutes (RR=0.71, 95% CI 0.07 to 7.14). CONCLUSION: In the PART, timing of advanced airway insertion attempt was not associated with survival to hospital discharge.

Effect of Out-of-Hospital Sodium Nitrite on Survival to Hospital Admission After Cardiac Arrest: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Therapeutic delivery of sodium nitrite during resuscitation improved survival in animal models of cardiac arrest, but efficacy has not been evaluated in clinical trials in humans. Objective: To determine whether parenteral administration of sodium nitrite given by paramedics during resuscitation for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest improved survival to hospital admission. Design, Setting, and Participants: Double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 randomized clinical trial including 1502 adults in King County, Washington, with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest from ventricular fibrillation or nonventricular fibrillation. Patients underwent resuscitation by paramedics and were enrolled between February 8, 2018, and August 19, 2019; follow-up and data abstraction were completed by December 31, 2019. Interventions: Eligible patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest were randomized (1:1:1) to receive 45 mg of sodium nitrite (n = 500), 60 mg of sodium nitrite (n = 498), or placebo (n = 499), which was given via bolus injection by the paramedics as soon as possible during active resuscitation. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was survival to hospital admission and was evaluated with 1-sided hypothesis testing. The secondary outcomes included out-of-hospital variables (rate of return of spontaneous circulation, rate of rearrest, and use of norepinephrine to support blood pressure) and in-hospital variables (survival to hospital discharge; neurological outcomes at hospital discharge; cumulative survival to 24 hours, 48 hours, and 72 hours; and number of days in the intensive care unit). Results: Among 1502 patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest who were randomized (mean age, 64 years [SD, 17 years]; 34% were women), 99% completed the trial. Overall, 205 patients (41%) in the 45 mg of sodium nitrite group and 212 patients (43%) in the 60 mg of sodium nitrite group compared with 218 patients (44%) in the placebo group survived to hospital admission; the mean difference for the 45-mg dose vs placebo was -2.9% (1-sided 95% CI, -8.0% to ∞; P = .82) and the mean difference for the 60-mg dose vs placebo was -1.3% (1-sided 95% CI, -6.5% to ∞; P = .66). None of the 7 prespecified secondary outcomes were significantly different, including survival to hospital discharge for 66 patients (13.2%) in the 45 mg of sodium nitrite group and 72 patients (14.5%) in the 60 mg of sodium nitrite group compared with 74 patients (14.9%) in the placebo group; the mean difference for the 45-mg dose vs placebo was -1.7% (2-sided 95% CI, -6.0% to 2.6%; P = .44) and the mean difference for the 60-mg dose vs placebo was -0.4% (2-sided 95% CI, -4.9% to 4.0%; P = .85). Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, administration of sodium nitrite, compared with placebo, did not significantly improve survival to hospital admission. These findings do not support the use of sodium nitrite during resuscitation from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03452917.

Simulation-Based Team Leadership Training Improves Team Leadership During Actual Trauma Resuscitations: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVES: Trauma resuscitations are complex critical care events that present patient safety-related risk. Simulation-based leadership training is thought to improve trauma care; however, there is no robust evidence supporting the impact of leadership training on clinical performance. The objective of this study was to assess the clinical impact of simulation-based leadership training on team leadership and patient care during actual trauma resuscitations. DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial. SETTING: Harborview Medical Center (level 1 trauma center). SUBJECTS: Seventy-nine second- and third-year residents were randomized and 360 resuscitations were analyzed. INTERVENTIONS: Subjects were randomized to a 4-hour simulation-based leadership training (intervention) or standard orientation (control) condition. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Participant-led actual trauma resuscitations were video recorded and coded for leadership behaviors and patient care. We used random coefficient modeling to account for the nesting effect of multiple observations within residents and to test for post-training group differences in leadership behaviors while controlling for pre-training behaviors, Injury Severity Score, postgraduate training year, and days since training occurred. Sixty participants completed the study. There was a significant difference in post-training leadership behaviors between the intervention and control conditions (b1 = 4.06, t (55) = 6.11, p < 0.001; intervention M = 11.29, SE = 0.66, 95% CI, 9.99-12.59 vs control M = 7.23, SE = 0.46, 95% CI, 6.33-8.13, d = 0.92). Although patient care was similar between conditions (b = 2.00, t (55) = 0.99, p = 0.325; predicted means intervention M = 62.38, SE = 2.01, 95% CI, 58.43-66.33 vs control M = 60.38, SE = 1.37, 95% CI, 57.69-63.07, d = 0.15), a test of the mediation effect between training and patient care suggests leadership behaviors mediate an effect of training on patient care with a significant indirect effect (b = 3.44, 95% CI, 1.43-5.80). Across all trauma resuscitations leadership was significantly related to patient care (b1 = 0.61, SE = 0.15, t (273) = 3.64, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Leadership training resulted in the transfer of complex skills to the clinical environment and may have an indirect effect on patient care through better team leadership.

Relationship Between Duration of Targeted Temperature Management, Ischemic Interval, and Good Functional Outcome From Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest.

OBJECTIVES: Tailoring hypothermia duration to ischemia duration may improve outcome from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. We investigated the association between the hypothermia/ischemia ratio and functional outcome in a secondary analysis of data from the Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium Amiodarone, Lidocaine, or Placebo Study trial. DESIGN: Cohort study of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients screened for Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium-Amiodarone, Lidocaine, or Placebo Study. SETTING: Multicenter study across North America. PATIENTS: Adult, nontraumatic, out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients screened for Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium-Amiodarone, Lidocaine, or Placebo Study who survived to hospital admission and received targeted temperature management between May 2012 and October 2015. INTERVENTIONS: Targeted temperature management in comatose survivors of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. We defined hypothermia/ischemia ratio as total targeted temperature management time (initiation through rewarming) divided by calculated total ischemia time (approximate time of arrest [9-1-1 call or emergency medical services-witnessed] to return of spontaneous circulation). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The primary outcome was hospital survival with good functional status (modified Rankin Score, 0-3) at hospital discharge. We fitted logistic regression models to estimate the association between hypothermia/ischemia ratio and the primary outcome, adjusting for demographics, arrest characteristics, and Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium enrolling site. A total of 3,429 patients were eligible for inclusion, of whom 36.2% were discharged with good functional outcome. Patients had a mean age of 62.0 years (SD, 15.8), with 69.7% male, and 58.0% receiving lay-rescuer cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Median time to return of spontaneous circulation was 21.1 minutes (interquartile range, 16.1-26.9), and median duration of targeted temperature management was 32.9 hours (interquartile range, 23.7-37.8). A total of 2,579 had complete data and were included in adjusted regression analyses. After adjustment for patient characteristics and Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium site, a greater hypothermia/ischemia ratio was associated with increased survival with good functional outcome (odds ratio, 2.01; 95% CI, 1.82-2.23). This relationship, however, appears to be primarily driven by time to return of spontaneous circulation in this patient cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Although a larger hypothermia/ischemia ratio was associated with good functional outcome after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in this cohort, this association is primarily driven by duration of time to return of spontaneous circulation. Tailoring duration of targeted temperature management based on duration of time to return of spontaneous circulation or patient characteristics requires prospective study.

Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest Resuscitation Systems of Care: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.

The American Heart Association previously recommended implementation of cardiac resuscitation systems of care that consist of interconnected community, emergency medical services, and hospital efforts to measure and improve the process of care and outcome for patients with cardiac arrest. In addition, the American Heart Association proposed a national process to develop and implement evidence-based guidelines for cardiac resuscitation systems of care. Significant experience has been gained with implementing these systems, and new evidence has accumulated. This update describes recent advances in the science of cardiac resuscitation systems and evidence of their effectiveness, as well as recent progress in dissemination and implementation throughout the United States. Emphasis is placed on evidence published since the original recommendations (ie, including and since 2010).

Impact of Bystander Automated External Defibrillator Use on Survival and Functional Outcomes in Shockable Observed Public Cardiac Arrests.

BACKGROUND: Survival following out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) with shockable rhythms can be improved with early defibrillation. Although shockable OHCA accounts for only ≈25% of overall arrests, ≈60% of public OHCAs are shockable, offering the possibility of restoring thousands of individuals to full recovery with early defibrillation by bystanders. We sought to determine the association of bystander automated external defibrillator use with survival and functional outcomes in shockable observed public OHCA. METHODS: From 2011 to 2015, the Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium prospectively collected detailed information on all cardiac arrests at 9 regional centers. The exposures were shock administration by a bystander-applied automated external defibrillator in comparison with initial defibrillation by emergency medical services. The primary outcome measure was discharge with normal or near-normal (favorable) functional status defined as a modified Rankin Score ≤2. Survival to hospital discharge was the secondary outcome measure. RESULTS: Among 49 555 OHCAs, 4115 (8.3%) observed public OHCAs were analyzed, of which 2500 (60.8%) were shockable. A bystander shock was applied in 18.8% of the shockable arrests. Patients shocked by a bystander were significantly more likely to survive to discharge (66.5% versus 43.0%) and be discharged with favorable functional outcome (57.1% versus 32.7%) than patients initially shocked by emergency medical services. After adjusting for known predictors of outcome, the odds ratio associated with a bystander shock was 2.62 (95% confidence interval, 2.07-3.31) for survival to hospital discharge and 2.73 (95% confidence interval, 2.17-3.44) for discharge with favorable functional outcome. The benefit of bystander shock increased progressively as emergency medical services response time became longer. CONCLUSIONS: Bystander automated external defibrillator use before emergency medical services arrival in shockable observed public OHCA was associated with better survival and functional outcomes. Continued emphasis on public automated external defibrillator utilization programs may further improve outcomes of OHCA.

COSCA (Core Outcome Set for Cardiac Arrest) in Adults: An Advisory Statement From the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation.

Cardiac arrest effectiveness trials have traditionally reported outcomes that focus on survival. A lack of consistency in outcome reporting between trials limits the opportunities to pool results for meta-analysis. The COSCA initiative (Core Outcome Set for Cardiac Arrest), a partnership between patients, their partners, clinicians, research scientists, and the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation, sought to develop a consensus core outcome set for cardiac arrest for effectiveness trials. Core outcome sets are primarily intended for large, randomized clinical effectiveness trials (sometimes referred to as pragmatic trials or phase III/IV trials) rather than for pilot or efficacy studies. A systematic review of the literature combined with qualitative interviews among cardiac arrest survivors was used to generate a list of potential outcome domains. This list was prioritized through a Delphi process, which involved clinicians, patients, and their relatives/partners. An international advisory panel narrowed these down to 3 core domains by debate that led to consensus. The writing group refined recommendations for when these outcomes should be measured and further characterized relevant measurement tools. Consensus emerged that a core outcome set for reporting on effectiveness studies of cardiac arrest (COSCA) in adults should include survival, neurological function, and health-related quality of life. This should be reported as survival status and modified Rankin scale score at hospital discharge, at 30 days, or both. Health-related quality of life should be measured with ≥1 tools from Health Utilities Index version 3, Short-Form 36-Item Health Survey, and EuroQol 5D-5L at 90 days and at periodic intervals up to 1 year after cardiac arrest, if resources allow.

Amiodarone, Lidocaine, or Placebo in Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest.

BACKGROUND: Antiarrhythmic drugs are used commonly in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest for shock-refractory ventricular fibrillation or pulseless ventricular tachycardia, but without proven survival benefit. METHODS: In this randomized, double-blind trial, we compared parenteral amiodarone, lidocaine, and saline placebo, along with standard care, in adults who had nontraumatic out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, shock-refractory ventricular fibrillation or pulseless ventricular tachycardia after at least one shock, and vascular access. Paramedics enrolled patients at 10 North American sites. The primary outcome was survival to hospital discharge; the secondary outcome was favorable neurologic function at discharge. The per-protocol (primary analysis) population included all randomly assigned participants who met eligibility criteria and received any dose of a trial drug and whose initial cardiac-arrest rhythm of ventricular fibrillation or pulseless ventricular tachycardia was refractory to shock. RESULTS: In the per-protocol population, 3026 patients were randomly assigned to amiodarone (974), lidocaine (993), or placebo (1059); of those, 24.4%, 23.7%, and 21.0%, respectively, survived to hospital discharge. The difference in survival rate for amiodarone versus placebo was 3.2 percentage points (95% confidence interval [CI], -0.4 to 7.0; P=0.08); for lidocaine versus placebo, 2.6 percentage points (95% CI, -1.0 to 6.3; P=0.16); and for amiodarone versus lidocaine, 0.7 percentage points (95% CI, -3.2 to 4.7; P=0.70). Neurologic outcome at discharge was similar in the three groups. There was heterogeneity of treatment effect with respect to whether the arrest was witnessed (P=0.05); active drugs were associated with a survival rate that was significantly higher than the rate with placebo among patients with bystander-witnessed arrest but not among those with unwitnessed arrest. More amiodarone recipients required temporary cardiac pacing than did recipients of lidocaine or placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, neither amiodarone nor lidocaine resulted in a significantly higher rate of survival or favorable neurologic outcome than the rate with placebo among patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest due to initial shock-refractory ventricular fibrillation or pulseless ventricular tachycardia. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01401647.).

Bayesian Analysis of the Pragmatic Airway Resuscitation Trial.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Intubation and laryngeal tube insertion are common airway management strategies in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Bayesian analysis offers an alternate statistical approach to assess the results of a trial. We use Bayesian analysis to compare the effectiveness of initial laryngeal tube versus initial intubation strategies on outcomes after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in the Pragmatic Airway Resuscitation Trial. METHODS: We performed a post hoc Bayesian analysis of the Pragmatic Airway Resuscitation Trial. We defined prior distributions representing neutral or skeptical estimates of laryngeal tube benefit. Using Bayesian log binomial models, we fit models for 72-hour survival, hospital survival, and hospital survival with favorable neurologic status. We estimated the posterior probability (the probability of observing an effect difference between treatment groups) of the benefit of laryngeal tube over intubation on out-of-hospital cardiac arrest outcomes. RESULTS: The parent trial enrolled 3,004 patients (1,505 laryngeal tube, 1,499 intubation). Under a neutral prior distribution (relative risk 1.0), laryngeal tube was better than intubation (72-hour survival risk difference 1.8% [95% credible interval {CrI} -0.9% to 4.5%], posterior probability 91%; hospital survival 1.4% [95% CrI -0.4% to 3.4%], posterior probability 93%; and hospital survival with favorable neurologic status 0.7% [95% CrI -0.5% to 2.1%], posterior probability 86%). Under a skeptical prior distribution (relative risk 0.83 to 0.92), laryngeal tube was also better than intubation (72-hour survival risk difference 1.7% [95% CrI -0.9% to 4.3%], posterior probability 89%; hospital survival 1.3% [95% CrI -0.5% to 3.3%], posterior probability 91%; and hospital survival with favorable neurologic status 0.6% [95% CrI -0.5% to 2.0%], posterior probability 82%). CONCLUSION: Under various prior assumptions, post hoc Bayesian analysis of the Pragmatic Airway Resuscitation Trial confirmed better out-of-hospital cardiac arrest outcomes with a strategy of initial laryngeal tube than initial intubation.

Trial of Continuous or Interrupted Chest Compressions during CPR.

BACKGROUND: During cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) in patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, the interruption of manual chest compressions for rescue breathing reduces blood flow and possibly survival. We assessed whether outcomes after continuous compressions with positive-pressure ventilation differed from those after compressions that were interrupted for ventilations at a ratio of 30 compressions to two ventilations. METHODS: This cluster-randomized trial with crossover included 114 emergency medical service (EMS) agencies. Adults with non-trauma-related cardiac arrest who were treated by EMS providers received continuous chest compressions (intervention group) or interrupted chest compressions (control group). The primary outcome was the rate of survival to hospital discharge. Secondary outcomes included the modified Rankin scale score (on a scale from 0 to 6, with a score of ≤3 indicating favorable neurologic function). CPR process was measured to assess compliance. RESULTS: Of 23,711 patients included in the primary analysis, 12,653 were assigned to the intervention group and 11,058 to the control group. A total of 1129 of 12,613 patients with available data (9.0%) in the intervention group and 1072 of 11,035 with available data (9.7%) in the control group survived until discharge (difference, -0.7 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -1.5 to 0.1; P=0.07); 7.0% of the patients in the intervention group and 7.7% of those in the control group survived with favorable neurologic function at discharge (difference, -0.6 percentage points; 95% CI, -1.4 to 0.1, P=0.09). Hospital-free survival was significantly shorter in the intervention group than in the control group (mean difference, -0.2 days; 95% CI, -0.3 to -0.1; P=0.004). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, continuous chest compressions during CPR performed by EMS providers did not result in significantly higher rates of survival or favorable neurologic function than did interrupted chest compressions. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and others; ROC CCC ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01372748.).

The Association of Duration of participation in get with the guidelines-resuscitation with quality of Care for in-Hospital Cardiac Arrest.

BACKGROUND: Large variations exist in the care processes and outcomes for patients who experience in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA). We examined if Get With The Guidelines-Resuscitation (GWTG-R) participation duration was associated with improved care processes. METHODS AND RESULTS: We calculated an overall process composite performance score for IHCA patients using five guideline-recommended process measures, calculating composite adherence among patients, and grouped at hospitals based on GWTG-R participation duration. Trend tests using logistic regression with generalized estimating equations examined the impact of participation duration on quality. Using multivariable regression models adjusting for patient factors, hospital factors, secular trends, and GWTG-R participation duration, we assessed the association between participation duration and process composite performance. We examined 149,551 patients from 447 hospitals (2000-2012). Over the study period we saw decreases in: median age of cardiac arrest (71 to 67 years), the proportion of whites (69.2% to 66.6%), and pulseless ventricular tachycardia/ventricular fibrillation frequency (32.3% to 17.3%). Hospitals were increasingly more likely to be in urban locations and have higher nurse-to-bed ratios. Guideline performance adherence improved with participation duration for several individual process measures and overall process composite performance: process composite score (P-value trend P < .001), confirmation of endotracheal tube (P < .001 trend), monitored/witnessed event (P < .001 trend), time to first chest compressions ≤1 minute (P < .001 trend), and time to vasopressor use ≤5 minutes (P-value trend = 0.0004). There was a decrease in adherence as duration of participation increased for time to defibrillation ≤2 minutes (P-value trend = 0.005). After adjusting for several factors including calendar time, GWTG-R participation duration was independently associated with improved process composite performance (OR 1.05 per year, 95% CI 1.03-1.07). CONCLUSIONS: GWTG-R participation duration was associated with a significant improvement in IHCA quality of care, yet significant opportunities remain to find ways to maximize quality of care in this high-risk patient group.

Effect of a Strategy of Initial Laryngeal Tube Insertion vs Endotracheal Intubation on 72-Hour Survival in Adults With Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Emergency medical services (EMS) commonly perform endotracheal intubation (ETI) or insertion of supraglottic airways, such as the laryngeal tube (LT), on patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). The optimal method for OHCA advanced airway management is unknown. Objective: To compare the effectiveness of a strategy of initial LT insertion vs initial ETI in adults with OHCA. Design, Setting, and Participants: Multicenter pragmatic cluster-crossover clinical trial involving EMS agencies from the Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium. The trial included 3004 adults with OHCA and anticipated need for advanced airway management who were enrolled from December 1, 2015, to November 4, 2017. The final date of follow-up was November 10, 2017. Interventions: Twenty-seven EMS agencies were randomized in 13 clusters to initial airway management strategy with LT (n = 1505 patients) or ETI (n = 1499 patients), with crossover to the alternate strategy at 3- to 5-month intervals. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was 72-hour survival. Secondary outcomes included return of spontaneous circulation, survival to hospital discharge, favorable neurological status at hospital discharge (Modified Rankin Scale score ≤3), and key adverse events. Results: Among 3004 enrolled patients (median [interquartile range] age, 64 [53-76] years, 1829 [60.9%] men), 3000 were included in the primary analysis. Rates of initial airway success were 90.3% with LT and 51.6% with ETI. Seventy-two hour survival was 18.3% in the LT group vs 15.4% in the ETI group (adjusted difference, 2.9% [95% CI, 0.2%-5.6%]; P = .04). Secondary outcomes in the LT group vs ETI group were return of spontaneous circulation (27.9% vs 24.3%; adjusted difference, 3.6% [95% CI, 0.3%-6.8%]; P = .03); hospital survival (10.8% vs 8.1%; adjusted difference, 2.7% [95% CI, 0.6%-4.8%]; P = .01); and favorable neurological status at discharge (7.1% vs 5.0%; adjusted difference, 2.1% [95% CI, 0.3%-3.8%]; P = .02). There were no significant differences in oropharyngeal or hypopharyngeal injury (0.2% vs 0.3%), airway swelling (1.1% vs 1.0%), or pneumonia or pneumonitis (26.1% vs 22.3%). Conclusions and Relevance: Among adults with OHCA, a strategy of initial LT insertion was associated with significantly greater 72-hour survival compared with a strategy of initial ETI. These findings suggest that LT insertion may be considered as an initial airway management strategy in patients with OHCA, but limitations of the pragmatic design, practice setting, and ETI performance characteristics suggest that further research is warranted. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02419573.