The New South Wales Sudden Cardiac Arrest Registry: A Data Linkage Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Sudden cardiac arrest (SCA) in young people aged 1 to 50 years often occurs with no presenting symptoms or risk factors prompting screening for cardiovascular disease prior to their cardiac arrest. Approximately 3,000 young Australians suffer from sudden cardiac death (SCD) each year, making this a major public health issue. However, there is significant variation in the way incidence is estimated resulting in discrepancy across reporting which impacts our ability to understand and prevent these devastating events. We describe the New South Wales (NSW) Sudden Cardiac Arrest Registry: a retrospective, data linkage study which will identify all SCAs in the young in NSW from 2009 through to June 2022. OBJECTIVE: To determine the incidence, demographic characteristics and causes of SCA in young people. We will develop an NSW-based registry that will contribute to a greater understanding of SCA including risk factors and outcomes. METHODS: The cohort will include all people who experience a SCA in the NSW community aged between 1 to 50 years. Cases will be identified using the following three datasets: the Out of Hospital Cardiac Arrest Register housed at NSW Ambulance, the NSW Emergency Department Data Collection, and the National Coronial Information System. Data from eight datasets will be collected, anonymised and linked for the entire cohort. Analysis will be undertaken and reported using descriptive statistics. CONCLUSIONS: The NSW SCA registry will be an important resource for the improved understanding of SCA and inform the widespread impacts it has on individuals, their families and society.

2021 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations: Summary From the Basic Life Support; Advanced Life Support; Neonatal Life Support; Education, Implementation, and Teams; First Aid Task Forces; and the COVID-19 Working Group.

The International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation initiated a continuous review of new, peer-reviewed published cardiopulmonary resuscitation science. This is the fifth annual summary of the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations; a more comprehensive review was done in 2020. This latest summary addresses the most recently published resuscitation evidence reviewed by International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation task force science experts. Topics covered by systematic reviews in this summary include resuscitation topics of video-based dispatch systems; head-up cardiopulmonary resuscitation; early coronary angiography after return of spontaneous circulation; cardiopulmonary resuscitation in the prone patient; cord management at birth for preterm and term infants; devices for administering positive-pressure ventilation at birth; family presence during neonatal resuscitation; self-directed, digitally based basic life support education and training in adults and children; coronavirus disease 2019 infection risk to rescuers from patients in cardiac arrest; and first aid topics, including cooling with water for thermal burns, oral rehydration for exertional dehydration, pediatric tourniquet use, and methods of tick removal. Members from 6 International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation task forces have assessed, discussed, and debated the quality of the evidence, according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation criteria, and their statements include consensus treatment recommendations or good practice statements. Insights into the deliberations of the task forces are provided in Justification and Evidence-to-Decision Framework Highlights sections. In addition, the task forces listed priority knowledge gaps for further research.

2021 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations: Summary From the Basic Life Support; Advanced Life Support; Neonatal Life Support; Education, Implementation, and Teams; First Aid Task Forces; and the COVID-19 Working Group.

The International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation initiated a continuous review of new, peer-reviewed published cardiopulmonary resuscitation science. This is the fifth annual summary of the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations; a more comprehensive review was done in 2020. This latest summary addresses the most recently published resuscitation evidence reviewed by International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation task force science experts. Topics covered by systematic reviews in this summary include resuscitation topics of video-based dispatch systems; head-up cardiopulmonary resuscitation; early coronary angiography after return of spontaneous circulation; cardiopulmonary resuscitation in the prone patient; cord management at birth for preterm and term infants; devices for administering positive-pressure ventilation at birth; family presence during neonatal resuscitation; self-directed, digitally based basic life support education and training in adults and children; coronavirus disease 2019 infection risk to rescuers from patients in cardiac arrest; and first aid topics, including cooling with water for thermal burns, oral rehydration for exertional dehydration, pediatric tourniquet use, and methods of tick removal. Members from 6 International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation task forces have assessed, discussed, and debated the quality of the evidence, according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation criteria, and their statements include consensus treatment recommendations or good practice statements. Insights into the deliberations of the task forces are provided in Justification and Evidence-to-Decision Framework Highlights sections. In addition, the task forces listed priority knowledge gaps for further research.

Intravenous vs. intraosseous administration of drugs during cardiac arrest: A systematic review.

AIM: To perform a systematic review of the literature on intravenous (IV) vs. intraosseous (IO) administration of drugs during cardiac arrest in order to inform an update of international guidelines. METHODS: The review was performed according to PRISMA guidelines and registered on PROSPERO. Medline, Embase and Evidence-Based Medicine Reviews were searched on December 17, 2019 for studies comparing IV to IO administration of drugs. The population included neonatal, paediatric, and adult patients with cardiac arrest. Two investigators reviewed each search for study relevance, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias of individual studies. Meta-analyses were performed for studies without a critical risk of bias. Certainty of evidence was evaluated using GRADE. RESULTS: We included six observational studies comparing IV to IO administration of drugs and two randomized trials assessing the effect of specific drugs in subgroups related to IV vs. IO administration. All studies included adult out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients. No studies were identified in neonatal or paediatric patients. The risk of bias for the observational studies was overall assessed as critical or serious, with confounding and selection bias being the primary sources of bias. The meta-analyses excluding studies with a critical risk of bias favoured IV access for all outcomes. Using GRADE, the certainty of evidence was judged at very low. Subgroup analyses of the two randomized trials demonstrated no statistically significant interactions between the route of access and study drugs on outcomes. However, these trials were underpowered to assess such interactions. CONCLUSIONS: We identified a limited number of studies comparing IV vs. IO administration of drugs during cardiac arrest. Pooled results from four observational studies favoured IV access with very low certainty of evidence. From the subgroup analyses of two randomized clinical trials, there was no statistically significant interaction between the route of access and study drug on outcomes.

Advanced airway management during adult cardiac arrest: A systematic review.

AIM: To systematically review the literature on advanced airway management during adult cardiac arrest in order to inform the International Liaison Committee of Resuscitation (ILCOR) consensus on science and treatment recommendations. METHODS: The review was performed according to PRISMA guidelines and registered on PROSPERO (CRD42018115556). We searched Medline, Embase, and Evidence-Based Medicine Reviews for controlled trials and observational studies published before October 30, 2018. The population included adult patients with cardiac arrest. Two investigators reviewed studies for relevance, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias of individual studies. RESULTS: We included 78 observational studies and 11 controlled trials. Most of the observational studies and all of the controlled trials only included patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. The risk of bias for individual observational studies was overall assessed as critical or serious, with confounding and selection bias being the primary sources of bias. Three of the controlled trials, all published in 2018, were powered for clinical outcomes with two comparing a supraglottic airway to tracheal intubation and one comparing bag-mask ventilation to tracheal intubation. All three trials had some concerns regarding risk of bias primarily due to lack of blinding and variable adherence to the protocol. Clinical and methodological heterogeneity across studies, for both the observational studies and the controlled trials, precluded any meaningful meta-analyses. CONCLUSIONS: We identified a large number of studies related to advanced airway management in adult cardiac arrest. Three recently published, large randomized trials in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest will help to inform future guidelines. Trials of advanced airway management during in-hospital cardiac arrest are lacking.