Resuscitation in the out-of-hospital setting: medical futility criteria for on-scene pronouncement of death.

The complete and irreversible cessation of life is often difficult to determine with complete confidence in the dynamic environment of out-of-hospital emergency care. As a result, resuscitation efforts often are initiated and maintained by emergency medical services (EMS) providers in many hopeless situations. Medical guidelines are reviewed here to aid EMS organizations with respect to decisions about: 1) initiating or waiving resuscitation efforts; 2) the appropriate duration of resuscitation efforts; and 3) recommended procedures for on-scene or prehospital pronouncement of death (termination of resuscitation). In cases of nontraumatic cardiac arrest, few unassailable criteria, other than certain physical signs of irreversible tissue deterioration, exist for determining medical futility at the initial encounter with the patient. Thus, the general medical recommendation is to attempt to resuscitate all patients, adult or child, in the absence of rigor mortis or dependent lividity. Conversely, wellfounded guidelines now are available for decisions regarding termination of resuscitation in such patients once they have received a trial of advanced cardiac life support. In practice, however, the final decision to proceed with on-scene pronouncement of death for these patients may be determined more by family and provider comfort levels and the specific on-scene environment. For patients with posttraumatic circulatory arrest, the type of injury (blunt or penetrating), the presence of vital signs, and the electrocardiographic findings are used to determine the futility of initiating or continuing resuscitation efforts. In general, patients who are asystolic on-scene are candidates for on-scene pronouncement, regardless of mechanism. With a few exceptions, blunt trauma patients with a clearly associated mechanism of lethal injury are generally candidates for immediate cessation of efforts once they lose their pulses and respirations. Regardless of the medical futility criteria, specialized training of EMS providers and targeted related testing of operational issues need to precede field implementation of on-scene pronouncement policies. Such policies also must be modified and adapted for local issues and resources. In addition, although the current determinations of medical futility, as delineated here, are important to establish for societal needs, the individual patient's right to live must be kept in mind always as new medical advances are developed.

Biphasic truncated exponential waveform defibrillation.

This paper presents data from studies that have compared the efficacies of biphasic truncated exponential (BTE) and monophasic damped sine (MDS) waveform defibrillation in patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest and in in-hospital defibrillation. When a shock is delivered, rhythms evolve rapidly in a variety of directions and take different courses, even over a short time. When defibrillation is defined as termination of ventricular fibrillation at 5 seconds postshock, whether to an organized rhythm or asystole, low-energy BTE shocks appear to be more effective than high-energy MDS shocks in out-of-hospital arrest. For future research, the terms associated with defibrillation should be standardized and used uniformly by all investi-gators. In particular, there should be an agreed-upon definition of shock efficacy.

Comparison of midazolam and diazepam for conscious sedation in the emergency department.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of diazepam and midazolam when used for conscious sedation in emergency department patients. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, double-blind, multicenter trial. SETTING: Three university EDs. TYPE OF PARTICIPANTS: Patients requiring one of the following procedures: abscess drainage, joint reduction, extensive suturing, chest tube insertion, or lumbar puncture. INTERVENTIONS: Diazepam (2.5 mg/mL) or midazolam (1 mg/mL) was administered until the desired level of sedation was achieved to a maximum of 5 mL. Fentanyl citrate was administered if needed for pain. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Thirty-three patients received diazepam and 36 received midazolam. Patients receiving midazolam had a greater degree of early sedation (P < .05), a higher 90-minute alertness scale score (P < .05), more patients ready for discharge at 90 minutes (P = .05), significantly less recall for the procedure (P < .02), and less pain on injection (P < .01) than patients who were given diazepam. CONCLUSIONS: Diazepam and midazolam are both effective for conscious sedation in ED patients. Midazolam causes less pain on injection, a significantly greater degree of early sedation, and a more rapid return to baseline function.

Fast Track in the emergency department: a one-year experience with nurse practitioners.

The use of a Fast Track system in the emergency department is becoming increasingly popular in order to provide fast and efficient service to patients with minor emergencies. In this paper we describe the one-year results of our system staffed by nurse practitioners. During the first year of operation, a total of 4468 patients were seen in Fast Track. Approximately 28% of patients are triaged to Fast Track during its hours of operation. The average patient seen in Fast Track was ready for discharge 94.4 minutes after presentation. Fewer than 1% of patients required admission to the hospital. Overall, patients and medical staff were highly satisfied with the Fast Track system. Our experience demonstrates that nurse practitioners can effectively and efficiently staff a Fast Track in an academic emergency department.