Prehospital anesthesia in postcardiac arrest patients: a multicenter retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Currently, the data regarding the impact of prehospital postcardiac arrest anesthesia on target hemodynamic and ventilatory parameters of early postresuscitation care and recommendations on its implementation are rare. The present study examines the incidence and impact of prehospital postcardiac arrest anesthesia on hemodynamic and ventilatory target parameters of postresuscitation care. METHODS: In this multicentre observational study between 2019 and 2021 unconscious adult patients after out-of-hospital-cardiac arrest with the presence of a return-of-spontaneous circulation until hospital admission were included. Primary endpoint was the application of postarrest anesthesia. Secondary endpoints included the medication group used, predisposing factors to its implementation, and its influence on achieving target parameters of postresuscitation care (systolic blood pressure: ≥ 100 mmHg, etCO2:35-45 mmHg, SpO2: 94-98%) at hospital handover. RESULTS: During the study period 2,335 out-of-hospital resuscitations out of 391,305 prehospital emergency operations (incidence: 0.58%; 95% CI 0.54-0.63) were observed with a return of spontaneous circulation to hospital admission in 706 patients (30.7%; 95% CI 28.8-32.6; female: 34.3%; age:68.3 ± 14.2 years). Postcardiac arrest anesthesia was performed in 482 patients (68.3%; 95% CI 64.7-71.7) with application of hypnotics in 93.4% (n = 451), analgesics in 53.7% (n = 259) and relaxants in 45.6% (n = 220). Factors influencing postcardiac arrest sedation were emergency care by an anesthetist (odds ratio: 2.10; 95% CI 1.34-3.30; P < 0.001) and treatment-free interval ≤ 5 min (odds ratio: 1.59; 95% CI 1.01-2.49; P = 0.04). Although there was no evidence of the impact of performing postcardiac arrest anesthesia on achieving a systolic blood pressure ≥ 100 mmHg at the end of operation (odds ratio: 1.14; 95% CI 0.78-1.68; P = 0.48), patients with postcardiac arrest anesthesia were significantly more likely to achieve the recommended ventilation (odds ratio: 1.59; 95% CI 1.06-2.40; P = 0.02) and oxygenation (odds ratio:1.56; 95% CI 1.04-2.35; P = 0.03) targets. Comparing the substance groups, the use of hypnotics significantly more often enabled the target values for etCO2 to be reached alone (odds ratio:2.79; 95% CI 1.04-7.50; P = 0.04) as well as in combination with a systolic blood pressure ≥ 100 mmHg (odds ratio:4.42; 95% CI 1.03-19.01; P = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Postcardiac arrest anesthesia in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest is associated with early achievement of respiratory target parameters in prehospital postresuscitation care without evidence of more frequent hemodynamic complications.

Midazolam for Post-Arrest Sedation in Pre-Hospital Emergency Care­a Multicenter Propensity Score Analysis.

BACKGROUND: An out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) with return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) may need to be treated with airway management, emergency ventilation, invasive interventions, and post-arrest sedation. We investigated the influence of the use of midazolam for post-arrest sedation on achieving post-resuscitation care targets and the associated risk of hemodynamic complications. METHODS: All emergency rescue missions of the Dresden, Gütersloh, and Lippe medical rescue services in the years 2019-2021 were reviewed to identify adult patients who had OHCA, unconsciousness, and sustained ROSC with spontaneous circulation until arrival at the hospital; the findings were supplemented with data from the German Resuscitation Registry. Patients who received midazolam (alone or in combination with other anesthetic agents) for post-arrest sedation were compared with those who did not. The endpoints were the regaining of a systolic blood pressure ≥ 100 mmHg, end-tidal pCO2 35-45 mmHg, and oxygen saturation (SpO2) 94-98%. A propensity score analysis was used to adjust for age, sex, and variables potentially affecting hemodynamic status or the targets for oxygenation and ventilation. RESULTS: There were 2335 cases of OHCA among 391 305 emergency rescue missions. 571 patients had ROSC before arrival in the hospital (24.5%; female, 33.6%; age, 68 ± 14 years). Of the 395 among them (69.2%) who were treated with post-arrest sedation, 249 (63.0%) received midazolam. Patients who received midazolam reached the guideline-recommended targets for oxygenation, ventilation, and blood pressure more frequently than those who were not sedated: the respective odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals were 2.00 [1.20; 3.34], 1.57 [0.99; 2.48], and 1.41 [0.89; 2.21]. CONCLUSION: The pre-hospital administration of midazolam leads to more frequent pre-hospital attainment of the oxygenation and ventilation targets in post-resuscitation care, without any evidence of an elevated risk of hemodynamic complications.

Efficacy of in-bed chest compressions depending on provider position during in-hospital cardiac arrest: a controlled manikin study.

BACKGROUND: In contrast to the pre-hospital environment, patients with in-hospital cardiac arrest are usually lying in a hospital bed. Interestingly, there are no current recommendations for optimal provider positioning. The present study evaluates in bed chest compression quality in different provider positions during in-hospital-cardiac-arrest. METHODS: Paramedics conducted four resuscitation scenarios: manikin lying on the floor with provider position kneeling next to the manikin (control group), manikin lying in a hospital bed with the provider kneeling astride, kneeling beside or standing next to the manikin. A resuscitation board was not used according to the current guideline recommendations. Quality of resuscitation, compression depth, compression rate and percentage of compressions with complete chest rebound were recorded. Afterwards, the paramedics were asked about subjective efficiency and fatigue. Data were analyzed using Generalized-Linear-Mixed-Models and, in addition, by non-parametric Friedman test. RESULTS: A total of 60 participants were recruited. The total quality of chest compressions was significantly higher in floor-based control position compared to the standing (P<.001) and both kneeling positions (P<.05). Also, the compression depth was significantly more guideline compliant in the control (P<.001) and the kneeling position (P<.05) compared to the standing position. The compression frequency as well as the complete chest wall recoil did not differ significantly. The standing position was rated as more fatiguing than the other positions (p≤0.001), kneeling beside as subjectively more efficient than the standing position (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In case of an in-bed resuscitation, high quality chest compressions are possible. Kneeling astride or beside the patient should be preferred because these positions demonstrated a good chest compression quality and were more efficient and less exhausting.

Impact of COVID-19-adapted guidelines using different airway management strategies on resuscitation quality in out-of-hospital-cardiac-arrest - a randomised manikin study.

BACKGROUND: Although airway management for paramedics has moved away from endotracheal intubation towards extraglottic airway devices in recent years, in the context of COVID-19, endotracheal intubation has seen a revival. Endotracheal intubation has been recommended again under the assumption that it provides better protection against aerosol liberation and infection risk for care providers than extraglottic airway devices accepting an increase in no-flow time and possibly worsen patient outcomes. METHODS: In this manikin study paramedics performed advanced cardiac life support with non-shockable (Non-VF) and shockable rhythms (VF) in four settings: ERC guidelines 2021 (control), COVID-19-guidelines using videolaryngoscopic intubation (COVID-19-intubation), laryngeal mask (COVID-19-Laryngeal-Mask) or a modified laryngeal mask modified with a shower cap (COVID-19-showercap) to reduce aerosol liberation simulated by a fog machine. Primary endpoint was no-flow-time, secondary endpoints included data on airway management as well as the participants' subjective assessment of aerosol release using a Likert-scale (0 = no release-10 = maximum release) were collected and statistically compared. Continuous Data was presented as mean ± standard deviation. Interval-scaled Data were presented as median and Q1 and Q3. RESULTS: A total of 120 resuscitation scenarios were completed. Compared to control (Non-VF:11 ± 3 s, VF:12 ± 3 s) application of COVID-19-adapted guidelines lead to prolonged no-flow times in all groups (COVID-19-Intubation: Non-VF:17 ± 11 s, VF:19 ± 5 s;p ≤ 0.001; COVID-19-laryngeal-mask: VF:15 ± 5 s,p ≤ 0.01; COVID-19-showercap: VF:15 ± 3 s,p ≤ 0.01). Compared to COVID-19-Intubation, the use of the laryngeal mask and its modification with a showercap both led to a reduction of no-flow-time(COVID-19-laryngeal-mask: Non-VF:p = 0.002;VF:p ≤ 0.001; COVID-19-Showercap: Non-VF:p ≤ 0.001;VF:p = 0.002) due to a reduced duration of intubation (COVID-19-Intubation: Non-VF:40 ± 19 s;VF:33 ± 17 s; both p ≤ 0.01 vs. control, COVID-19-Laryngeal-Mask (Non-VF:15 ± 7 s;VF:13 ± 5 s;p > 0.05) and COVID-19-Shower-cap (Non-VF:15 ± 5 s;VF:17 ± 5 s;p > 0.05). The participants rated aerosol liberation lowest in COVID-19-intubation (median:0;Q1:0,Q3:2;p < 0.001vs.COVID-19-laryngeal-mask and COVID-19-showercap) compared to COVID-19-shower-cap (median:3;Q1:1,Q3:3 p < 0.001vs.COVID-19-laryngeal-mask) or COVID-19-laryngeal-mask (median:9;Q1:6,Q3:8). CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19-adapted guidelines using videolaryngoscopic intubation lead to a prolongation of no-flow time. The use of a modified laryngeal mask with a shower cap seems to be a suitable compromise combining minimal impact on no-flowtime and reduced aerosol exposure for the involved providers.

AED delivery at night - Can drones do the Job? A feasibility study of unmanned aerial systems to transport automated external defibrillators during night-time.

BACKGROUND: In their recent guidelines the European Resuscitation Council have recommended the use of Unmanned Aerial systems (UAS) to overcome the notorious shortage of AED. Exploiting the full potential of airborne AED delivery would mandate 24 h UAS operability. However, current systems have not been evaluated for nighttime use. The primary goal of our study was to evaluate the feasibility of night-time AED delivery by UAS. The secondary goal was to obtain and compare operational and safety data of night versus day missions. METHODS: We scheduled two (one day, one night) flights each to ten different locations to assess the feasibility of AED delivery by UAS during night-time. We also compared operational data (mission timings) and safety data (incidence of critical events) of night versus day missions. RESULTS: All missions were completed without safety incident. The flights were performed automatically without pilot interventions, apart from manually choosing the landing site and correcting the descent. Flight distances ranged from 910 m to 6.960 m, corresponding mission times from alert to AED release between 3:48 min and 11:20 min. Night missions (T¯m:night = 7:26 ± 2:29 min) did not take longer than day missions (T¯m:day = 7:59 ± 2:27 min). Despite slightly inferior visibility of the target site, night landings (T¯land:night = 64 ± 15 sec) were on average marginally quicker than day landings (T¯land:day = 69 ± 11sec). CONCLUSIONS: Our results demonstrate the feasibility of UAS supported AED delivery during nighttime. Operational and safety data indicate no major differences between day- and night-time use. Future research should focus on integration of drone technology into the chain of survival.

Impact of COVID-19-adapted guidelines on resuscitation quality in out-of-hospital-cardiac-arrest: a manikin study.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study is to evaluate the effects of European Resuscitation Council (ERC) COVID-19-guidelines on resuscitation quality emphasizing advanced airway management in out-of-hospital-cardiac-arrest. METHODS: In a manikin study paramedics and emergency physicians performed advanced cardiac life support in three settings: ERC guidelines 2015 (control), COVID-19-guidelines as suggested with minimum staff (COVID-19-minimal-personnel); COVID-19-guidelines with paramedics and an emergency physician (COVID-19-advanced-airway-manager). Main outcome measures were no-flow-time, quality metrics as defined by ERC and time intervals to first chest compression, oxygen supply, intubation and first rhythm analysis. Data were presented as mean±standard deviation. RESULTS: Thirty resuscitation scenarios were completed. No-flow-time was markedly prolonged in COVID-19-minimal-personnel (113±37 s) compared to control (55±9 s) and COVID-19-advanced-airway-manager (76±38s; P<0.001 each). In both COVID-19-groups chest compressions started later (COVID-19-minimal-personnel: 32±6 s; COVID-19-advanced-airway-manager: 37±7 s; each P<0.001 vs. control [21±5 s]), but oxygen supply (COVID-19-minimal-personnel: 29±5 s; COVID-19-advanced-airway-manager: 34±7 s; each P<0.001 vs. control [77±19 s]) and first intubation attempt (COVID-19-minimal-personnel: 111±14 s; COVID-19-advanced-airway-manager: 131±20 s; each P<0.001 vs. control [178±44 s]) were performed earlier. However, time interval to successful intubation was similar (control: 198±48 s; COVID-19-minimal-personnel: 181±42 s; COVID-19-advanced-airway-manager: 130±25 s) due to a longer intubation time in COVID-19-minimal-personnel (61±35 s) compared to COVID-19-advanced-airway-manager (P=0.002) and control (19±6 s; P<0.001). Time to first rhythm analysis was more than doubled in COVID-19-minimal-personnel (138±96 s) compared to control (50±12 s; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Delayed chest compressions and prolonged no-flow-time markedly reduced the quality of resuscitation. These negative effects were attenuated by increasing the number of staff and by adding an experienced airway manager. The use of endotracheal intubation for reducing aerosol release during resuscitation should be discussed critically as its priorization is associated with an increase in no-flow-time.

High-quality chest compressions are possible during intra-hospital transport, but depend on provider position: A manikin study.

BACKGROUND: Treatment of reversible causes of cardiac arrest often requires intrahospital transportation during ongoing resuscitation. But high-quality chest compression with minimal interruption is the most essential prerequisite for an optimal outcome after cardiac resuscitation. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to evaluate chest compression quality according to the provider position during intrahospital transportation. DESIGN: Manikin observational study. SETTING: German Tertiary Care Hospital. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 20 paramedics (eight female, 12 male); average professional experience 4.8 ±â€Š3.1 years since their initial enrolment for training. INTERVENTION(S): Participants performed chest compressions during simulated intrahospital transportation in four groups: provider kneeling beside manikin on the floor (control group), walking next to the bed (group 1), kneeling on the bed beside the manikin (group 2), kneeling astride the manikin on the bed (group 3). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Quality metrics as European Resuscitation Council Guidelines 2015. Subsequently, the participants were asked to assess their own subjective feelings of safety, comfort and strain, and to recommend one position. RESULTS: The quality of chest compression in the control group and groups 2 and 3 did not differ significantly. Group 1 performed significantly worse in terms of the correct hand placement on the chest (P = 0.044 vs. control group) and compression depth (P = 0.004 vs. control group, P = 0.035 vs. group 2, P = 0.006 vs. group 3). Transport speed was faster in groups 2 and 3 vs. group 1 (P < 0.05 vs. group 1, P < 0.05 vs. group 2). The majority of participants rated position 1 as unsafe (90%), unpleasant (100%) and exhausting (100%). They predominantly favoured position 3 (70%). CONCLUSION: Performing guideline-compliant chest compressions during intra-hospital transportation is feasible with an appropriate provider position. Our results suggest, kneeling beside or astride the patient on the bed enables high-quality chest compressions, faster transport and is perceived by the providers as more pleasant. 'Walking next to the bed' while performing chest compressions should be avoided.