Impact of intravenous accessibility and prehospital epinephrine use on survival outcomes of adult nontraumatic out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients.

BACKGROUND: This study compared out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) patient outcomes based on intravenous (IV) access and prehospital epinephrine use. METHODS: A retrospective study in Ulsan, South Korea, from January 2017 to December 2022, analyzed adult nontraumatic OHCA cases. Patients were grouped: Group 1 (no IV attempts), Group 2 (failed IV access), Group 3 (successful IV access without epinephrine), and Group 4 (successful IV access with epinephrine), with comparisons using logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: Among 2,656 patients, Group 4 had significantly lower survival to hospital discharge (adjusted OR 0.520, 95% CI 0.346-0.782, p = 0.002) and favorable neurological outcomes (adjusted OR 0.292, 95% CI 0.140-0.611, p = 0.001) than Group 1. Groups 2 and 3 showed insignificant survival to hospital discharge (adjusted OR 0.814, 95% CI 0.566-1.171, p = 0.268) and (adjusted OR 1.069, 95% CI 0.810-1.412, p = 0.636) and favorable neurological outcomes (adjusted OR 0.585, 95% CI 0.299-1.144, p = 0.117) and (adjusted OR 1.075, 95% CI 0.689-1.677, p = 0.751). In the shockable rhythm group, Group 3 had better survival to hospital discharge (adjusted OR 1.700, 95% CI 1.044-2.770, p = 0.033). CONCLUSIONS: Successful IV access with epinephrine showed worse outcomes in both rhythm groups than no IV attempts. Outcomes for failed IV and successful IV access without epinephrine were inconclusive. Importantly, successful IV access without epinephrine showed favorable survival to hospital discharge in the shockable rhythm group, warranting further research into IV access for fluid resuscitation in shockable rhythm OHCA patients.

A retrospective, multi-agency 'target trial emulation' for the comparison of post-resuscitation epinephrine to norepinephrine.

INTRODUCTION: Epinephrine and norepinephrine are the two most commonly used prehospital vasopressors in the United States. Prior studies have suggested that use of a post-ROSC epinephrine infusion may be associated with increased rearrest and mortality in comparison to use of norepinephrine. We used target trial emulation methodology to compare the rates of rearrest and mortality between the groups of OHCA patients receiving these vasopressors in the prehospital setting. METHODS: Adult (18-80 years of age) non-traumatic OHCA patients in the 2018-2022 ESO Data Collaborative datasets with a documented post-ROSC norepinephrine or epinephrine infusion were included in this study. Logistic regression modeling was used to evaluate the association between vasopressor agent and outcome using two sets of covariables. The first set of covariables included standard Utstein factors, the dispatch to ROSC interval, the ROSC to vasopressor interval, and the follow-up interval. The second set added prehospital systolic blood pressure and SpO2 values. Kaplan-Meier time-to-event analysis was also conducted and the vasopressor groups were compared using a multivariable Cox regression model. RESULTS: Overall, 1,893 patients treated by 309 EMS agencies were eligible for analysis. 1,010 (53.4%) received an epinephrine infusion and 883 (46.7%) received a norepinephrine infusion as their initial vasopressor. Adjusted analyses did not discover an association between vasopressor agent and rearrest (aOR: 0.93 [0.72, 1.21]) or mortality (aOR: 1.00 [0.59, 1.69]). CONCLUSIONS: In this multi-agency target trial emulation, the use of a post-resuscitation epinephrine infusion was not associated with increased odds of rearrest in comparison to the use of a norepinephrine infusion.

Effect of prehospital high-dose glucocorticoid on hemodynamics in patients resuscitated from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: a sub-study of the STEROHCA trial.

BACKGROUND: Following resuscitated out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA), inflammatory markers are significantly elevated and associated with hemodynamic instability and organ dysfunction. Vasopressor support is recommended to maintain a mean arterial pressure (MAP) above 65 mmHg. Glucocorticoids have anti-inflammatory effects and may lower the need for vasopressors. This study aimed to assess the hemodynamic effects of prehospital high-dose glucocorticoid treatment in resuscitated comatose OHCA patients. METHODS: The STEROHCA trial was a randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial comparing one prehospital injection of methylprednisolone 250 mg with placebo immediately after resuscitated OHCA. In this sub-study, we included patients who remained comatose at admission and survived until intensive care unit (ICU) admission. The primary outcome was cumulated norepinephrine use from ICU admission until 48 h reported as mcg/kg/min. Secondary outcomes included hemodynamic status characterized by MAP, heart rate, vasoactive-inotropic score (VIS), and the VIS/MAP-ratio as well as cardiac function assessed by pulmonary artery catheter measurements. Linear mixed-model analyses were performed to evaluate mean differences between treatment groups at all follow-up times. RESULTS: A total of 114 comatose OHCA patients were included (glucocorticoid: n = 56, placebo: n = 58) in the sub-study. There were no differences in outcomes at ICU admission. From the time of ICU admission up to 48 h post-admission, patients in the glucocorticoid group cumulated a lower norepinephrine use (mean difference - 0.04 mcg/kg/min, 95% CI - 0.07 to - 0.01, p = 0.02). Moreover, after 12-24 h post-admission, the glucocorticoid group demonstrated a higher MAP with mean differences ranging from 6 to 7 mmHg (95% CIs from 1 to 12), a lower VIS (mean differences from - 4.2 to - 3.8, 95% CIs from - 8.1 to 0.3), and a lower VIS/MAP ratio (mean differences from - 0.10 to - 0.07, 95% CIs from - 0.16 to - 0.01), while there were no major differences in heart rate (mean differences from - 4 to - 3, 95% CIs from - 11 to 3). These treatment differences between groups were also present 30-48 h post-admission but to a smaller extent and with increased statistical uncertainty. No differences were found in pulmonary artery catheter measurements between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Prehospital treatment with high-dose glucocorticoid was associated with reduced norepinephrine use in resuscitated OHCA patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EudraCT number: 2020-000855-11; submitted March 30, 2020. URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov ; Unique Identifier: NCT04624776.

Prehospital Administration of Norepinephrine and Epinephrine for Shock after Resuscitation from Cardiac Arrest.

INTRODUCTION: Shock after resuscitation from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) is often treated with vasopressors. We examined whether infusion of epinephrine versus norepinephrine was associated with prehospital rearrest and neurologically favorable survival among OHCA patients. METHODS: This retrospective study included OHCA cases in Seattle, Washington from 2014-2021 who had return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) followed by vasopressor infusion. Our primary exposure was infusion of epinephrine or norepinephrine. Our primary outcome was prehospital rearrest. Secondary outcomes included survival and neurologically favorable outcome (Cerebral Performance Category score of 1 or 2). We used multivariable logistic regression to test associations between exposures and outcomes adjusting for key covariates. RESULTS: Of 451 OHCA patients with ROSC followed by vasopressor infusion, 253 (56%) received norepinephrine and 198 (44%) received epinephrine infusions. Those who received epinephrine were older (median 66 [interquartile ranges {IQR} 53-79] vs 63 [IQR 47-75] years), but otherwise had similar baseline characteristics. Patients who received epinephrine were twice as likely to rearrest (55% vs 25%). After adjustment, the difference in rearrest rates between epinephrine and norepinephrine persisted (OR 3.28, 95%CI 2.25-5.08), and the odds of pulses at hospital arrival were lower in the epinephrine group (OR 0.52 95%CI 0.32-0.83). After adjustment, there was no difference in neurologically favorable survival, survival to hospital admission, or survival to discharge. CONCLUSION: Patients who received epinephrine infusions after ROSC suffered prehospital rearrest more frequently than those who received norepinephrine. Survival and neurological status at hospital discharge were similar. Future trials should examine the optimal approach to hemodynamic management for post-OHCA shock.

Prehospital high-dose methylprednisolone in resuscitated out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients (STEROHCA): a randomized clinical trial.

PURPOSE: Patients who are successfully resuscitated following out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) are still at a high risk of neurological damage and death. Inflammation and brain injury are components of the post-cardiac arrest syndrome, and can be assessed by systemic interleukin 6 (IL-6) and neuron-specific enolase (NSE). Anti-inflammatory treatment with methylprednisolone may dampen inflammation, thereby improving outcome. This study aimed to determine if prehospital high-dose methylprednisolone could reduce IL-6 and NSE in comatose OHCA patients. METHODS: The STEROHCA trial was a randomized, blinded, placebo-controlled, phase II prehospital trial performed at two cardiac arrest centers in Denmark. Resuscitated comatose patients with suspected cardiac etiology were randomly assigned 1:1 to a single intravenous injection of 250 mg methylprednisolone or placebo. The co-primary outcome was reduction of IL-6 and NSE-blood levels measured daily for 72 h from admission. The main secondary outcome was survival at 180 days follow-up. RESULTS: We randomized 137 patients to methylprednisolone (n = 68) or placebo (n = 69). We found reduced IL-6 levels (p < 0.0001) in the intervention group, with median (interquartile range, IQR) levels at 24 h of 2.1 pg/ml (1.0; 7.1) and 30.7 pg/ml (14.2; 59) in the placebo group. We observed no difference between groups in NSE levels (p = 0.22), with levels at 48 h of 18.8 ug/L (14.4; 24.6) and 14.8 ug/L (11.2; 19.4) in the intervention and placebo group, respectively. In the intervention group, 51 (75%) patients survived and 44 (64%) in the placebo group. CONCLUSION: Prehospital treatment with high-dose methylprednisolone to resuscitated comatose OHCA patients, resulted in reduced IL-6 levels after 24 h, but did not reduce NSE levels.

Effect of adjuvant thiamine and ascorbic acid administration on the neurologic outcomes of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients: A before-and-after study.

AIM: This study aimed to evaluate the impact of early thiamine and ascorbic acid administration on the neurologic outcome in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) patients treated with targeted temperature management (TTM). METHODS: This before-and-after cohort study used data extracted from two hospitals of the Korean Hypothermia Network prospective registry. The treatment group incorporated patients enrolled from December 2019 to May 2021, that received intravenous thiamine (200 mg) and ascorbic acid (3 g) at 12-hour intervals for a total of six doses. The control group incorporated those enrolled from May 2018 to November 2019. The one-month good neurologic outcome, defined as a Cerebral Performance Category score ≤ 2, between the groups was evaluated using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW). RESULTS: Among the 234 OHCA survivors with TTM, 102 were included in the treatment group and 132 were included in the control group. The one-month (31.4 % vs. 29.5 %, respectively; P = 0.76) good neurologic outcome rates did not differ between the treatment and control groups. After adjusting using the IPTW, vitamin supplementation was not associated with good neurologic outcome (odds ratio [OR], 1.134; 95 % confidence interval [CI], 0.644-1.999; P = 0.66). In subgroup analysis, vitamin administration was significantly associated with a good neurologic outcome in older (≥65 years) patients (adjusted OR, 5.53; 95 % CI, 1.21-25.23; P = 0.03). CONCLUSION: Adjuvant thiamine and ascorbic acid administration in OHCA survivors with TTM did not improve their neurologic outcome after one month. Further clinical trials are warranted.

Trends in use of intraosseous and intravenous access in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest across English ambulance services: A registry-based, cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: The optimum route for drug administration in cardiac arrest is unclear. Recent data suggest that use of the intraosseous route may be increasing. This study aimed to explore changes over time in use of the intraosseous and intravenous drug routes in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in England. METHODS: We extracted data from the UK Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest Outcomes registry. We included adult out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients between 2015-2020 who were treated by an English Emergency Medical Service that submitted vascular access route data to the registry. The primary outcome was any use of the intraosseous route during cardiac arrest. We used logistic regression models to describe the association between time (calendar month) and intraosseous use. RESULTS: We identified 75,343 adults in cardiac arrest treated by seven Emergency Medical Service systems between January 2015 and December 2020. The median age was 72 years, 64% were male and 23% presented in a shockable rhythm. Over the study period, the percentage of patients receiving intraosseous access increased from 22.8% in 2015 to 42.5% in 2020. For each study-month, the odds of receiving any intraosseous access increased by 1.019 (95% confidence interval 1.019 to 1.020, p < 0.001). This observed effect was consistent across sensitivity analyses. We observed a corresponding decrease in use of intravenous access. CONCLUSION: In England, the use of intraosseous access in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest has progressively increased over time. There is an urgent need for randomised controlled trials to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of the different vascular access routes in cardiac arrest.

The Effect of Time to Treatment With Antiarrhythmic Drugs on Survival and Neurological Outcomes in Shock Refractory Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest.

OBJECTIVES: Examining the association of time to treatment (drug or placebo) with survival to hospital discharge and neurologic outcome. DESIGN: Post hoc analysis of the Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium Amiodarone, Lidocaine, Placebo randomized controlled trial. SETTING: Emergency medical services enrolled patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) at multiple North American sites. PATIENTS: Adults with nontraumatic OHCA and an initial rhythm of ventricular fibrillation or pulseless ventricular tachycardia refractory to at least one defibrillation attempt were included. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We used logistic regression to examine the association of time to treatment with survival to hospital discharge and favorable neurologic status at discharge (modified Rankin Scale ≤ 3) for the three treatment groups including an interaction term between treatment and time to treatment to determine the effect of time on treatment effects. Time to treatment data were available for 2,994 out of 3,026 patients (99%). The proportion of patients who survived to hospital discharge decreased as time to drug administration increased, in amiodarone (odds ratio [OR], 0.91; 95% CI, 0.90-0.93 per min), lidocaine (OR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.91-0.96), and placebo (OR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.90-0.93). Comparing amiodarone to placebo, there was improved survival at all times of drug administration (OR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.05-1.65). Comparing lidocaine to placebo, survival was not different with shorter times to drug administration (< 11 min), whereas survival was higher with lidocaine at longer times to drug administration with an interaction between treatment effect and time to treatment (p = 0.048). Survival with good neurologic outcome showed similar results for all analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Survival and favorable neurologic outcomes decreased with longer times to drug administration. Amiodarone improved survival at all time points whereas lidocaine improved survival only at later time points, compared with placebo.

Evaluation of the effectiveness of potassium chloride in the management of out-of hospital cardiac arrest by refractory ventricular fibrillation: Study protocol of the POTACREH study.

PURPOSE: Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) has a poor prognosis, with an overall survival rate of about 5% at discharge. Shockable rhythm cardiac arrests (ventricular fibrillation (VF) and pulseless ventricular tachycardia (VT)) have a better prognosis. In case of shockable rhythm, treatment is based on defibrillation, and thereafter, in case of failure of 3 external electric shocks (EES), on direct intravenous administration of 300 mg amiodarone, or lidocaine when amiodarone is unavailable or inefficient. During surgical procedures under extracorporeal circulation, a high potassium cardioplegia solution is administered to interrupt cardiac activity and facilitate surgical procedure. By extension, direct intravenous administration of potassium chloride (KCl) has been shown to convert VF, resulting in return to a hemodynamically efficient organized heart rate within a few minutes. The aim of this study is to provide clinical evidence that direct intravenous injection of KCl, into a patient presenting with OHCA due to refractory VF although 3 EES, should interrupt this VF and then allow rapid restauration of an organized heart rhythm, and thus return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC). METHODS: A multicenter, prospective, single group, phase 2 study will be conducted on 81 patients presenting with refractory VF. After failure of 3 EES, each patient will receive direct intravenous injection of 20 mmol KCl instead of amiodarone. The primary outcome will be survival rate at hospital admission. Major secondary outcomes will include ROSC and time to ROSC in the prehospital setting, number of VF recidivism after KCl injection, survival rate at hospital discharge with a good neurologic prognostic, and survival rate 3 months after hospital discharge with a good neurologic prognostic. RESULTS: No patient is currently included in the study. DISCUSSION: Conventional guideline strategy based on antiarrhythmic drug administration, i.e. amiodarone or lidocaine, for OHCA due to shockable rhythm, has not yet demonstrated an increase in survival at hospital admission or at hospital discharge. This may be related to the major cardiodepressant effect of those drugs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04316611. Registered on March 2020. AP-HP180577 / N° EUDRACT: 2019-002544-24. Funded by the French Health Ministry. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04316611.

Survival by time-to-administration of amiodarone, lidocaine, or placebo in shock-refractory out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.

BACKGROUND: Amiodarone and lidocaine have not been shown to have a clear survival benefit compared to placebo for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). However, randomized trials may have been impacted by delayed administration of the study drugs. We sought to evaluate how timing from emergency medical services (EMS) arrival on scene to drug administration affects the efficacy of amiodarone and lidocaine compared to placebo. METHOD: This is a secondary analysis of the 10-site, 55-EMS-agency double-blind randomized controlled amiodarone, lidocaine, or placebo in OHCA study. We included patients with initial shockable rhythms who received the study drugs of amiodarone, lidocaine, or placebo before achieving return of spontaneous circulation. We performed logistic regression analyses evaluating survival to hospital discharge and secondary outcomes of survival to admission and functional survival (modified Rankin scale score ≤ 3). We evaluated the samples stratified by early (<8 min) and late administration groups (≥8 min). We compared outcomes for amiodarone and lidocaine compared to placebo and adjust for potential confounders. RESULTS: There were 2802 patients meeting inclusion criteria, with 879 (31.4%) in the early (<8 min) and 1923 (68.6%) in the late (≥8 min) groups. In the early group, patients receiving amiodarone, compared to placebo, had significantly higher survival to admission (62.0% vs. 48.5%, p = 0.001; adjusted OR [95% CI] 1.76 [1.24-2.50]), survival to discharge (37.1% vs. 28.0%, p = 0.021; 1.56 [1.07-2.29]), and functional survival (31.6% vs. 23.3%, p = 0.029; 1.55 [1.04-2.32]). There were no significant differences with early lidocaine compared to early placebo (p > 0.05). Patients in the late group who received amiodarone or lidocaine had no significant differences in outcomes at discharge compared to placebo (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The early administration of amiodarone, particularly within 8 min, is associated with greater survival to admission, survival to discharge, and functional survival compared to placebo in patients with an initial shockable rhythm.

Impact of the route of adrenaline administration in patients suffering from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest on 30-day survival with good neurological outcome (ETIVIO study).

BACKGROUND: Over the past decades, international guidelines for cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) have changed the recommendation for alternative routes for drug administration. Until now, evidence for the substantial superiority of one route with respect to treatment outcome after CPR has been lacking. The present study compares the effects of intravenous (IV), intraosseous (IO) and endotracheal (ET) adrenaline application during CPR in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) on clinical outcomes within the database of the German Resuscitation Registry (GRR). METHODS: This registry analysis was based on the GRR cohort of 212,228 OHCA patients between 1989 and 2020. Inclusion criteria were: OHCA, application of adrenaline, and out-of-hospital CPR. Excluded from the study were patients younger than 18 years, those who had trauma or bleeding as suspected causes of cardiac arrest, and incomplete data sets. The clinical endpoint was hospital discharge with good neurological outcome [cerebral performance category (CPC) 1/2]. Four routes of adrenaline administration were compared: IV, IO, IO + IV, ET + IV. Group comparisons were done using matched-pair analysis and binary logistic regression. RESULTS: In matched-pair group comparisons of the primary clinical outcome hospital discharge with CPC 1/2, the IV group (n = 2416) showed better results compared to IO (n = 1208), [odds ratio (OR): 2.43, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.54-3.84, p < 0.01] and when comparing IV (n = 8706) to IO + IV (n = 4353), [OR: 1.33, 95% CI: 1.12-1.59, p < 0.01]. In contrast, no significant difference was found between IV (n = 532) and ET + IV (n = 266), [OR: 1.26, 95% CI: 0.55-2.90, p = 0.59]. Concurrently, binary logistic regression yielded a highly significant effect of vascular access type (χ² = 67.744(3), p < 0.001) on hospital discharge with CPC1/2, with negative effects for IO (regression coefficient (r.c.) = - 0.766, p = 0.001) and IO + IV (r.c. = - 0.201, p = 0,028) and no significant effect for ET + IV (r.c. = 0.117, p = 0.770) compared to IV. CONCLUSIONS: The GRR data, collected over a period of 31 years, seem to emphasize the relevance of an IV access during out-of-hospital CPR, in the event that adrenaline had to be administered. IO administration of adrenaline might be less effective. ET application, though removed in 2010 from international guidelines, could gain importance as an alternative route again.

Epinephrine in Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest: A Network Meta-analysis and Subgroup Analyses of Shockable and Nonshockable Rhythms.

BACKGROUND: Epinephrine is the most commonly used drug in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) resuscitation, but evidence supporting its efficacy is mixed. RESEARCH QUESTION: What are the comparative efficacy and safety of standard dose epinephrine, high-dose epinephrine, epinephrine plus vasopressin, and placebo or no treatment in improving outcomes after OHCA? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: In this systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials, we searched six databases from inception through June 2022 for randomized controlled trials evaluating epinephrine use during OHCA resuscitation. We performed frequentist random-effects network meta-analysis and present ORs and 95% CIs. We used the the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach to rate the certainty of evidence. Outcomes included return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), survival to hospital admission, survival to discharge, and survival with good functional outcome. RESULTS: We included 18 trials (21,594 patients). Compared with placebo or no treatment, high-dose epinephrine (OR, 4.27; 95% CI, 3.68-4.97), standard-dose epinephrine (OR, 3.69; 95% CI, 3.32-4.10), and epinephrine plus vasopressin (OR, 3.54; 95% CI, 2.94-4.26) all increased ROSC. High-dose epinephrine (OR, 3.53; 95% CI, 2.97-4.20), standard-dose epinephrine (OR, 3.00; 95% CI, 2.66-3.38), and epinephrine plus vasopressin (OR, 2.79; 95% CI, 2.27-3.44) all increased survival to hospital admission as compared with placebo or no treatment. However, none of these agents may increase survival to discharge or survival with good functional outcome as compared with placebo or no treatment. Compared with placebo or no treatment, standard-dose epinephrine improved survival to discharge among patients with nonshockable rhythm (OR, 2.10; 95% CI, 1.21-3.63), but not in those with shockable rhythm (OR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.39-1.85). INTERPRETATION: Use of standard-dose epinephrine, high-dose epinephrine, and epinephrine plus vasopressin increases ROSC and survival to hospital admission, but may not improve survival to discharge or functional outcome. Standard-dose epinephrine improved survival to discharge among patients with nonshockable rhythm, but not those with shockable rhythm. TRIAL REGISTRY: Center for Open Science: https://osf.io/arxwq.

Epinephrine administration in adults with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: A comparison between intraosseous and intravenous route.

INTRODUCTION: The benefits and risks of the intraosseous (IO) route for vascular access in patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) remain controversial. This study compares the success rates of establishing the access route, epinephrine administration rates, and time-to-epinephrine between adult patients with OHCA with IO access and those with intravenous (IV) access established by paramedics in the prehospital setting. METHODS: This was a retrospective study conducted by the San-Min station of Taoyuan Fire Department. Data for IV access were collected between January 1, 2020, and December 31, 2020. Data for IO access were collected between January 1, 2021, and March 10, 2021. Inclusion criteria were adult patients with OHCA who received on-scene resuscitation attempts and in whom either IV or IO route access was established by paramedics. Exclusion criteria were missing data, return of spontaneous circulation before establishing vascular access, cardiac arrest en route to hospital, patients not resuscitated, and OHCA unidentified by the dispatcher. Exposure was defined as IV route vs. IO route (EZ-IO®). The outcome measurements were per-patient based success rates of route establishment (successes/attempts), administration rates of epinephrine (epinephrine administered per case/enrolled OHCAs), and odds ratios of IV versus IO on epinephrine administration. We used nonparametric Mann-Whitney rank sum tests for the analysis in continuous variables and Fisher's exact tests for the analysis of categorical variables and the outcomes. Firth logistic regression method was used for sparse data. Factors associated with epinephrine administration other than vascular access were also analyzed. Time-to-epinephrine (defined as time from paramedic arrival to epinephrine injection) was reviewed and calculated by two independent observers and the Kaplan-Meier method was used to compare the two access routes. RESULTS: A total of 112 adult patients were enrolled in the analysis, including 71 men and 41 women, with an average age of 67 years. There were 90 IV access cases and 22 IO access cases. The groups were compared for median success rates of route establishment (33% vs. 100%, P < 0.001) and administration rates of epinephrine (52% vs. 100%, P < 0.001). The adjusted odds ratio of IO versus IV was 32.445, 95% confidence interval (CI) of 1.844-570.861. Time-to-epinephrine was significantly shorter in the cumulative time-event analysis by the Kaplan-Meier method (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The IO route was significantly associated with higher success rates of route establishment, epinephrine administration, and shorter time-to-epinephrine in the prehospital resuscitation of adult patients with OHCA.

Therapeutic and adverse effects of adrenaline on patients who suffer out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The efficacy and safety of epinephrine in patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) remains controversial. The meta-analysis was used to comprehensively appraise the influence of epinephrine in OHCA patients. METHODS: We searched all randomized controlled and cohort studies published by PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library from the inception to August 2022 on the prognostic impact of epinephrine on patients with OHCA. Survival to discharge was the primary outcome, while the return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) and favorable neurological outcome were secondary outcomes. RESULTS: The meta-analysis included 18 studies involving 863,952 patients. OHCA patients with adrenaline had an observably improved chance of ROSC (RR 2.81; 95% CI 2.21-3.57; P = 0.001) in randomized controlled studies, but the difference in survival to discharge (RR 1.27; 95% CI 0.58-2.78; P = 0.55) and favorable neurological outcomes (RR 1.21; 95% CI 0.90-1.62; P = 0.21) between the two groups was not statistically significant. In cohort studies, the rate of ROSC (RR 1.62; 95% CI 1.14-2.30; P = 0.007) increased significantly with the adrenaline group, while survival to discharge (RR 0.73; 95% CI 0.55-0.98; P = 0.03) and favorable cerebral function (RR 0.42; 95% CI 0.30-0.58; P = 0.001) were lower than the non-adrenaline group. CONCLUSION: We found that both the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies showed that adrenaline increased ROSC in OHCA patients. However, they were unable to agree on a long-term prognosis. The cohort studies showed that adrenaline had an adverse effect on the long-term prognosis of OHCA patients (discharge survival rate and good neurological prognosis), but adrenaline had no adverse effect in the RCTs. In addition to the differences in research methods, there are also some potential confounding factors in the included studies. Therefore, more high-quality studies are needed to fully confirm the effect of adrenaline on the long-term results of OHCA.

Efficacy and safety of corticosteroids in cardiac arrest: a systematic review, meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of randomized control trials.

BACKGROUND: Post-cardiac arrest, outcomes for most patients are poor, regardless of setting. Many patients who do achieve spontaneous return of circulation require vasopressor therapy to maintain organ perfusion. There is some evidence to support the use of corticosteroids in cardiac arrest. RESEARCH QUESTION: Assess the efficacy and safety of corticosteroids in patients following in- and out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We searched databases CINAHL, EMBASE, LILACS, MEDLINE, Web of Science, CENTRAL, ClinicalTrails.gov, and ICTRP. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that examined the efficacy and safety of corticosteroids, as compared to placebo or usual care in patients post-cardiac arrest. We pooled estimates of effect size using random effects meta-analysis and report relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed risk of bias (ROB) for the included trials using the modified Cochrane ROB tool and rated the certainty of evidence using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology. RESULTS: We included 8 RCTs (n = 2213 patients). Corticosteroids administered post-cardiac arrest had an uncertain effect on mortality measured at the longest point of follow-up (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.90-1.02, very low certainty, required information size not met using trial sequential analysis). Corticosteroids probably increase return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) (RR 1.32, 95% CI 1.18-1.47, moderate certainty) and may increase the likelihood of survival with good functional outcome (RR 1.49, 95% CI 0.87-2.54, low certainty). Corticosteroids may decrease the risk of ventilator associated pneumonia (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.46-1.09, low certainty), may increase renal failure (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.84-1.99, low certainty), and have an uncertain effect on bleeding (RR 2.04, 95% CI 0.53-7.84, very low certainty) and peritonitis (RR 10.54, 95% CI 2.99-37.19, very low certainty). CONCLUSIONS: In patients during or after cardiac arrest, corticosteroids have an uncertain effect on mortality but probably increase ROSC and may increase the likelihood of survival with good functional outcome at hospital discharge. Corticosteroids may decrease ventilator associated pneumonia, may increase renal failure, and have an uncertain effect on bleeding and peritonitis. However, the pooled evidence examining these outcomes was sparse and imprecision contributed to low or very low certainty of evidence.

Esmolol, vector change, and dose-capped epinephrine for prehospital ventricular fibrillation or pulseless ventricular tachycardia.

BACKGROUND: Refractory ventricular fibrillation (VF) and pulseless ventricular tachycardia (pVT) cardiac arrest describes a subset of patients who do not respond to standard Advanced Cardiac Life Support (ACLS) interventions and are associated with poor outcomes. Esmolol administration and vector change defibrillation have shown promise in improving outcomes in these patients, however evidence is limited. OBJECTIVES: This study compares clinical outcomes between patients with prehospital refractory VF/pVT who received an Emergency Medical Service (EMS) bundle, comprised of esmolol administration, vector change defibrillation, and dose-capped epinephrine at 3 mg, to patients who received standard ACLS interventions. METHODS: This multicenter, retrospective, cohort study evaluated medical records between October 18, 2017 and March 15, 2022. Patients were enrolled if they experienced a prehospital cardiac arrest with the rhythm VF or pVT, had received at least three standard defibrillations, at least 3 mg of epinephrine, and 300 mg of amiodarone. Patients who received the EMS bundle after its implementation were compared to patients who received standard ACLS interventions prior to its implementation. The primary outcome was sustained return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), defined as ROSC lasting 20 min without recurrence of cardiac arrest. Secondary outcomes included the incidence of any ROSC, survival to hospital arrival, survival at hospital discharge, and neurologically intact survival at hospital discharge. RESULTS: Eighty-three patients were included in the study. Thirty-six were included in the pre-EMS bundle group and 47 patients were included in the post-EMS bundle group. Patients in the pre-EMS bundle group achieved significantly higher rates of sustained ROSC (58.3% vs 17%, p < 0.001), any ROSC (66.7% vs 19.1%, p < 0.001), and survival to hospital arrival (55.6% vs 17%, p < 0.001). The rates of survival to hospital discharge (16.7% vs 6.4%, p = 0.17) and neurologically intact survival at hospital discharge (5.9% vs 4.3%, p = 1.00) were not significantly different between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who received the EMS bundle achieved sustained ROSC significantly less often and were less likely to have pulses at hospital arrival. The incidence of neurologically intact survival was low and similar between groups.