Effect of Bag-Mask Ventilation vs Endotracheal Intubation During Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation on Neurological Outcome After Out-of-Hospital Cardiorespiratory Arrest: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Bag-mask ventilation (BMV) is a less complex technique than endotracheal intubation (ETI) for airway management during the advanced cardiac life support phase of cardiopulmonary resuscitation of patients with out-of-hospital cardiorespiratory arrest. It has been reported as superior in terms of survival. Objectives: To assess noninferiority of BMV vs ETI for advanced airway management with regard to survival with favorable neurological function at day 28. Design, Settings, and Participants: Multicenter randomized clinical trial comparing BMV with ETI in 2043 patients with out-of-hospital cardiorespiratory arrest in France and Belgium. Enrollment occurred from March 9, 2015, to January 2, 2017, and follow-up ended January 26, 2017. Intervention: Participants were randomized to initial airway management with BMV (n = 1020) or ETI (n = 1023). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was favorable neurological outcome at 28 days defined as cerebral performance category 1 or 2. A noninferiority margin of 1% was chosen. Secondary end points included rate of survival to hospital admission, rate of survival at day 28, rate of return of spontaneous circulation, and ETI and BMV difficulty or failure. Results: Among 2043 patients who were randomized (mean age, 64.7 years; 665 women [32%]), 2040 (99.8%) completed the trial. In the intention-to-treat population, favorable functional survival at day 28 was 44 of 1018 patients (4.3%) in the BMV group and 43 of 1022 patients (4.2%) in the ETI group (difference, 0.11% [1-sided 97.5% CI, -1.64% to infinity]; P for noninferiority = .11). Survival to hospital admission (294/1018 [28.9%] in the BMV group vs 333/1022 [32.6%] in the ETI group; difference, -3.7% [95% CI, -7.7% to 0.3%]) and global survival at day 28 (55/1018 [5.4%] in the BMV group vs 54/1022 [5.3%] in the ETI group; difference, 0.1% [95% CI, -1.8% to 2.1%]) were not significantly different. Complications included difficult airway management (186/1027 [18.1%] in the BMV group vs 134/996 [13.4%] in the ETI group; difference, 4.7% [95% CI, 1.5% to 7.9%]; P = .004), failure (69/1028 [6.7%] in the BMV group vs 21/996 [2.1%] in the ETI group; difference, 4.6% [95% CI, 2.8% to 6.4%]; P < .001), and regurgitation of gastric content (156/1027 [15.2%] in the BMV group vs 75/999 [7.5%] in the ETI group; difference, 7.7% [95% CI, 4.9% to 10.4%]; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with out-of-hospital cardiorespiratory arrest, the use of BMV compared with ETI failed to demonstrate noninferiority or inferiority for survival with favorable 28-day neurological function, an inconclusive result. A determination of equivalence or superiority between these techniques requires further research. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02327026.

Postresuscitation oxygen reserve index-guided oxygen titration in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest survivors: A randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Hyperoxia after return of spontaneous circulation is potentially harmful, and oxygen titration in a prehospital setting is challenging. This study aimed to compare outcomes of oxygen reserve index-supported prehospital oxygen titration during prehospital transport with those of standard oxygen titration. METHODS AND TRIAL DESIGN: We enrolled patients who experienced return of spontaneous circulation after cardiac arrest in a prospective randomized study. Patients were randomly divided (1:1) to undergo oxygen titration based on the oxygen reserve index and SpO2 (intervention) or SpO2 only (control). FIO2 titration targeted SpO2 level maintenance at 94-98%. The primary outcome was the normoxia index, reflecting the proportion of both hyperoxia- and hypoxia-free time during prehospital intervention. RESULTS: A total of 92 patients were included in the study. The mean normoxia index was 0.828 in the control group and 0.847 in the intervention group (difference = 0.019 [95 % CI, -0.056-0.095]), with no significant difference between the groups. No significant differences were found in the incidence of hypoxia or hyperoxia between groups. No difference was found in the mean PaO2 at hospital admission (116 mmHg [IQR: 89-168 mmHg] in the control group vs 115 mmHg [IQR: 89-195 mmHg] in the intervention group; p = 0.86). No difference was observed in serum neuron-specific enolase levels 48 h post-ROSC after adjustment for known confounders. CONCLUSION: Oxygen reserve index- combined with pulse oximetry-based prehospital oxygen titration did not significantly improve the normoxia index compared with standard oxygen titration based on pulse oximetry alone (NCT03653325).

A retrospective comparison of mechanical cardio-pulmonary ventilation and manual bag valve ventilation in non-traumatic out-of-hospital cardiac arrests: A study from the Belgian cardiac arrest registry.

BACKGROUND: The optimal ventilation modalities to manage out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) remain debated. A specific pressure mode called cardio-pulmonary ventilation (CPV) may be used instead of manual bag ventilation (MBV). We sought to analyse the association between mechanical CPV and return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) in non-traumatic OHCA. METHODS: MBV and CPV were retrospectively identified in patients with non-traumatic OHCA from the Belgian Cardiac Arrest Registry. We used a two-level mixed-effects multivariable logistic regression analysis to determine the association between the ventilation modalities and outcomes. The primary and secondary study criteria were ROSC and survival with a Cerebral Performance Category (CPC) score of 1 or 2 at 30 days. Age, sex, initial rhythm, no-flow duration, low-flow duration, OHCA location, use of a mechanical chest compression device and Rankin status before arrest were used as covariables. RESULTS: Between January 2017 and December 2021, 2566 patients with OHCA who fulfilled the inclusion criteria were included. 298 (11.6%) patients were mechanically ventilated with CPV whereas 2268 were manually ventilated. The use of CPV was associated with greater probability of ROSC both in the unadjusted (odds ratio: 1.28, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.01-1.63; p = 0.043) and adjusted analyses (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 2.16, 95%CI 1.37-3.41; p = 0.001) but not with a lower CPC score (aOR: 1.44, 95%CI 0.72-2.89; p = 0.31). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with MBV, CPV was associated with an increased risk of ROSC but not with improved an CPC score in patients with OHCA. Prospective randomised trials are needed to challenge these results.