European Registry of Cardiac Arrest - Study-THREE (EuReCa THREE) - An international, prospective, multi-centre, three-month survey of epidemiology, treatment and outcome of patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in Europe - The study protocol.

Background: The aim of the European Registry of Cardiac Arrest (EuReCa) network is to provide high quality evidence on epidemiology of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) in Europe by supporting and developing cardiac arrest registries and performing European-wide studies. To date, the EuReCa ONE and EuReCa TWO studies have involved around 28 countries, with population covered increasing from the first to the second study. The aim of the EuReCa THREE study is to build on previous work and to support the promotion of quality data collection on OHCA throughout Europe. Methods/design: EuReCa THREE will be the third prospective cohort study on epidemiology of OHCA and will involve around 30 European countries. The study will be conducted between 1st September and 30th November 2022. Data will be collected on cardiac arrest cases attended, resuscitation attempted, patient and cardiac arrest event characteristics and outcomes (including return of spontaneous circulation, status on hospital arrival and discharge). A particular focus for EuReCa THREE will be to describe key time intervals in OHCA management; time from call to EMS arrival on scene, time from cardiac arrest to start CPR, time from EMS arrival to delivery of patient to hospital.EuReCa THREE was registered with the German Registry of Clinical Trials Registration Number: DRKS00028591 searchable via WHO meta-registry (https://apps.who.int/trialsearch/). Discussion: The EuReCa THREE study will increase our knowledge on longitudinal OHCA epidemiology and provide new knowledge on crucial time intervals in OHCA management in Europe. However, the primary aim of building a network to support quality data on OHCA, remains the central tenant of the EuReCa project.

Evolution of European Resuscitation and End-of-Life Practices from 2015 to 2019: A Survey-Based Comparative Evaluation.

BACKGROUND: In concordance with the results of large, observational studies, a 2015 European survey suggested variation in resuscitation/end-of-life practices and emergency care organization across 31 countries. The current survey-based study aimed to comparatively assess the evolution of practices from 2015 to 2019, especially in countries with "low" (i.e., average or lower) 2015 questionnaire domain scores. METHODS: The 2015 questionnaire with additional consensus-based questions was used. The 2019 questionnaire covered practices/decisions related to end-of-life care (domain A); determinants of access to resuscitation/post-resuscitation care (domain B); diagnosis of death/organ donation (domain C); and emergency care organization (domain D). Responses from 25 countries were analyzed. Positive or negative responses were graded by 1 or 0, respectively. Domain scores were calculated by summation of practice-specific response grades. RESULTS: Domain A and B scores for 2015 and 2019 were similar. Domain C score decreased by 1 point [95% confidence interval (CI): 1-3; p = 0.02]. Domain D score increased by 2.6 points (95% CI: 0.2-5.0; p = 0.035); this improvement was driven by countries with "low" 2015 domain D scores. In countries with "low" 2015 domain A scores, domain A score increased by 5.5 points (95% CI: 0.4-10.6; p = 0.047). CONCLUSIONS: In 2019, improvements in emergency care organization and an increasing frequency of end-of-life practices were observed primarily in countries with previously "low" scores in the corresponding domains of the 2015 questionnaire.

To ventilate or not to ventilate during bystander CPR - A EuReCa TWO analysis.

BACKGROUND: Survival after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) is still low. For every minute without resuscitation the likelihood of survival decreases. One critical step is initiation of immediate, high quality cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). The aim of this subgroup analysis of data collected for the European Registry of Cardiac Arrest Study number 2 (EuReCa TWO) was to investigate the association between OHCA survival and two types of bystander CPR namely: chest compression only CPR (CConly) and CPR with chest compressions and ventilations (FullCPR). METHOD: In this subgroup analysis of EuReCa TWO, all patients who received bystander CPR were included. Outcomes were return of spontaneous circulation and survival to 30-days or hospital discharge. A multilevel binary logistic regression analysis with survival as the dependent variable was performed. RESULTS: A total of 5884 patients were included in the analysis, varying between countries from 21 to 1444. Survival was 320 (8%) in the CConly group and 174 (13%) in the FullCPR group. After adjustment for age, sex, location, rhythm, cause, time to scene, witnessed collapse and country, patients who received FullCPR had a significantly higher survival rate when compared to those who received CConly (adjusted odds ration 1.46, 95% confidence interval 1.17-1.83). CONCLUSION: In this analysis, FullCPR was associated with higher survival compared to CConly. Guidelines should continue to emphasise the importance of compressions and ventilations during resuscitation for patients who suffer OHCA and CPR courses should continue to teach both.

[Executive summary]. / Kurzfassung: Leitlinien des European Resuscitation Council 2021.

Informed by a series of systematic reviews, scoping reviews and evidence updates from the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation, the 2021 European Resuscitation Council Guidelines present the most up to date evidence-based guidelines for the practice of resuscitation across Europe. The guidelines cover the epidemiology of cardiac arrest; the role that systems play in saving lives, adult basic life support, adult advanced life support, resuscitation in special circumstances, post resuscitation care, first aid, neonatal life support, paediatric life support, ethics and education.

[Ethics of resuscitation and end of life decisions]. / Ethik der Reanimation und Entscheidungen am Lebensende: Leitlinien des European Resuscitation Council 2021.

These European Resuscitation Council Ethics guidelines provide evidence-based recommendations for the ethical, routine practice of resuscitation and end-of-life care of adults and children. The guideline primarily focus on major ethical practice interventions (i.e. advance directives, advance care planning, and shared decision making), decision making regarding resuscitation, education, and research. These areas are tightly related to the application of the principles of bioethics in the practice of resuscitation and end-of-life care.

European Resuscitation Council Guidelines 2021: Executive summary.

Informed by a series of systematic reviews, scoping reviews and evidence updates from the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation, the 2021 European Resuscitation Council Guidelines present the most up to date evidence-based guidelines for the practice of resuscitation across Europe. The guidelines cover the epidemiology of cardiac arrest; the role that systems play in saving lives, adult basic life support, adult advanced life support, resuscitation in special circumstances, post resuscitation care, first aid, neonatal life support, paediatric life support, ethics and education.

European Resuscitation Council Guidelines 2021: Ethics of resuscitation and end of life decisions.

These European Resuscitation Council Ethics guidelines provide evidence-based recommendations for the ethical, routine practice of resuscitation and end-of-life care of adults and children. The guideline primarily focus on major ethical practice interventions (i.e. advance directives, advance care planning, and shared decision making), decision making regarding resuscitation, education, and research. These areas are tightly related to the application of the principles of bioethics in the practice of resuscitation and end-of-life care.

European Resuscitation Council Guidelines 2021: Epidemiology of cardiac arrest in Europe.

In this section of the European Resuscitation Council Guidelines 2021, key information on the epidemiology and outcome of in and out of hospital cardiac arrest are presented. Key contributions from the European Registry of Cardiac Arrest (EuReCa) collaboration are highlighted. Recommendations are presented to enable health systems to develop registries as a platform for quality improvement and to inform health system planning and responses to cardiac arrest.

Description of Emergency Medical Services, treatment of cardiac arrest patients and cardiac arrest registries in Europe.

BACKGROUND: Variation in the incidence, survival rate and factors associated with survival after cardiac arrest in Europe is reported. Some studies have tried to fill the knowledge gap regarding the epidemiology of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in Europe but were unable to identify reasons for the reported differences. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to describe European Emergency Medical Systems, particularly from the perspective of country and ambulance service characteristics, cardiac arrest identification, dispatch, treatment, and monitoring. METHODS: An online questionnaire with 51 questions about ambulance and dispatch characteristics, on-scene management of cardiac arrest and the availability and dataset in cardiac arrest registries, was sent to all national coordinators who participated in the European Registry of Cardiac Arrest studies. In addition, individual invitations were sent to the remaining European countries. RESULTS: Participants from 28 European countries responded to the questionnaire. Results were combined with official information on population density. Overall, the number of Emergency Medical Service missions, level of training of personnel, availability of Helicopter Emergency Medical Services and the involvement of first responders varied across and within countries. There were similarities in team training, availability of key resuscitation equipment and permission for ongoing performance of cardiopulmonary resuscitation during transported. The quality of reporting to cardiac arrest registries varied, as well as the data availability in the registries. CONCLUSIONS: Throughout Europe there are important differences in Emergency Medical Service systems and the response to out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Explaining these differences is complicated due to significant variation in how variables are reported to and used in registries.

Survival after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in Europe - Results of the EuReCa TWO study.

BACKGROUND: The epidemiology and outcome after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) varies across Europe. Following on from EuReCa ONE, the aim of this study was to further explore the incidence of and outcomes from OHCA in Europe and to improve understanding of the role of the bystander. METHODS: This prospective, multicentre study involved the collection of registry-based data over a three-month period (1st October 2017 to 31st December 2017). The core study dataset complied with the Utstein-style. Primary outcomes were return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) and survival to hospital admission. Secondary outcome was survival to hospital discharge. RESULTS: All 28 countries provided data, covering a total population of 178,879,118. A total of 37,054 OHCA were confirmed, with CPR being started in 25,171 cases. The bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) rate ranged from 13% to 82% between countries (average: 58%). In one third of cases (33%) ROSC was achieved and 8% of patients were discharged from hospital alive. Survival to hospital discharge was higher in patients when a bystander performed CPR with ventilations, compared to compression-only CPR (14% vs. 8% respectively). CONCLUSION: In addition to increasing our understanding of the role of bystander CPR within Europe, EuReCa TWO has confirmed large variation in OHCA incidence, characteristics and outcome, and highlighted the extent to which OHCA is a public health burden across Europe. Unexplained variation remains and the EuReCa network has a continuing role to play in improving the quality management of resuscitation.

European Resuscitation Council Guidelines for Resuscitation: 2018 Update - Antiarrhythmic drugs for cardiac arrest.

This European Resuscitation Council (ERC) Guidelines for Resuscitation 2018 update is focused on the role of antiarrhythmic drugs during advanced life support for cardiac arrest with shock refractory ventricular fibrillation/pulseless ventricular tachycardia in adults, children and infants. This update follows the publication of the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation (ILCOR) 2018 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science with Treatment Recommendations (CoSTR). The ILCOR CoSTR suggests that any beneficial effects of amiodarone or lidocaine are similar. This ERC update does not make any major changes to the recommendations for the use of antiarrhythmic drugs during advanced life support for shock refractory cardiac arrest.

Ethical challenges in resuscitation.

PURPOSE: A rapidly evolving resuscitation science provides more effective treatments to an aging population with multiple comorbidites. Concurrently, emergency care has become patient-centered. This review aims to describe challenges associated with the application of key principles of bioethics in resuscitation and post-resuscitation care; propose actions to address these challenges; and highlight the need for evidence-based ethics and consensus on ethical principles interpretation. METHODS: Following agreement on the article's outline, subgroups of 2-3 authors provided narrative reviews of ethical issues concerning autonomy and honesty, beneficence/nonmaleficence and dignity, justice, specific practices/circumstances such as family presence during resuscitation, and emergency research. Proposals for addressing ethical challenges were also offered. RESULTS: Respect for patient autonomy can be realized through honest provision of information, shared decision-making, and advance directives/care planning. Essential prerequisites comprise public and specific healthcare professionals' education, appropriate regulatory provisions, and allocation of adequate resources. Regarding beneficence/nonmaleficence, resuscitation should benefit patients, while avoiding harm from futile interventions; pertinent practice should be based on neurological prognostication and patient/family-reported outcomes. Regarding dignity, aggressive life-sustaining treatments against patients preferences should be avoided. Contrary to the principle of justice, resuscitation quality may be affected by race/income status, age, ethnicity, comorbidity, and location (urban versus rural or country-specific/region-specific). Current evidence supports family presence during resuscitation. Regarding emergency research, autonomy should be respected without hindering scientific progress; furthermore, transparency of research conduct should be promoted and funding increased. CONCLUSIONS: Major ethical challenges in resuscitation science need to be addressed through complex/resource-demanding interventions. Such actions require support by ongoing/future research.

The International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation-Review of the last 25 years and vision for the future.

2017 marks the 25th anniversary of the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation (ILCOR). ILCOR was formed in 1992 to create a forum for collaboration among principal resuscitation councils worldwide. Since then, ILCOR has established and distinguished itself for its pioneering vision and leadership in resuscitation science. By systematically assessing the evidence for resuscitation standards and guidelines and by identifying national and regional differences, ILCOR reached consensus on international resuscitation guidelines in 2000, and on international science and treatment recommendations in 2005, 2010 and 2015. However, local variation and contextualization of guidelines are evident by subtle differences in regional and national resuscitation guidelines. ILCOR's efforts to date have enhanced international cooperation, and progressively more transparent and systematic collection and analysis of pertinent scientific evidence. Going forward, this sets the stage for ILCOR to pursue its vision to save more lives globally through resuscitation.

Time delays to reach dispatch centres in different regions in Europe. Are we losing the window of opportunity? - The EUROCALL study.

AIM: In out of hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) the start of Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) by a single rescuer may be delayed considerably if the total time (TT) to connect the telephone call to the Emergency Medical Communication Centre (EMCC) is prolonged. EUROCALL investigated the TT-EMCC and its components using different calling procedures. METHODS: This prospective, multicentre, randomised study was performed in April 2013. Telephone calls were randomly allocated to time of call, and to those connecting directly to the EMCC (1-step procedure) and those diverted before connecting to the EMCC (2-step procedure). RESULTS: Twenty-one EMCCs from 11 countries participated in the study. Time to first ringtone was similar between 1-step 3.7s (IQR 1.0-5.2) and 2-step calls 4.0s (IQR 2.4-5.2). For the 1878 1-step calls, the median TT-EMCC was 11.7s (IQR 8.7-18.5). For the 1550 2-step calls, the median time from first ringtone to first call-taker was 7s (IQR 4.6-11.9) and from first call-taker to EMCC was 18.7s (IQR 13.4-29.9). Median TT-EMCC was 33.2 s (IQR 24.7-46.1) and was significantly longer than the TT-EMCC observed with the 1-step procedure (P<0.0001). Significant differences existed among participating regions between and within different countries both for 1-step and 2-step procedures. CONCLUSION: TT-EMCC was significantly shorter in a 1-step procedure compared to a 2-step procedure. Regional differences existed between countries but also within countries. This may be relevant in cases of OHCA and other situations where patient outcome is critically time-dependent.

EuReCa ONE-27 Nations, ONE Europe, ONE Registry: A prospective one month analysis of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest outcomes in 27 countries in Europe.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of the EuReCa ONE study was to determine the incidence, process, and outcome for out of hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) throughout Europe. METHODS: This was an international, prospective, multi-centre one-month study. Patients who suffered an OHCA during October 2014 who were attended and/or treated by an Emergency Medical Service (EMS) were eligible for inclusion in the study. Data were extracted from national, regional or local registries. RESULTS: Data on 10,682 confirmed OHCAs from 248 regions in 27 countries, covering an estimated population of 174 million. In 7146 (66%) cases, CPR was started by a bystander or by the EMS. The incidence of CPR attempts ranged from 19.0 to 104.0 per 100,000 population per year. 1735 had ROSC on arrival at hospital (25.2%), Overall, 662/6414 (10.3%) in all cases with CPR attempted survived for at least 30 days or to hospital discharge. CONCLUSION: The results of EuReCa ONE highlight that OHCA is still a major public health problem accounting for a substantial number of deaths in Europe. EuReCa ONE very clearly demonstrates marked differences in the processes for data collection and reported outcomes following OHCA all over Europe. Using these data and analyses, different countries, regions, systems, and concepts can benchmark themselves and may learn from each other to further improve survival following one of our major health care events.