Pre-hospital point-of-care troponin measurement: a clinical example of its additional value.

In the majority of patients with chest pain, an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) can be ruled out. However, early recognition of an ACS is required in order to start treatment as soon as possible and reduce risks associated with myocardial ischaemia. Because of the lack of pre-hospital protocols to rule out an ACS, patients with a suspected ACS are transported to the emergency department, where the HEART score can be used to estimate the risk of major adverse cardiac events (MACE). Patients with a low HEART score have a low risk of MACE. A point-of-care (POC) troponin measurement enables ambulance paramedics to calculate the HEART score in the pre-hospital setting. POC troponin measurement and HEART score assessment have several potential advantages, including early recognition of an ACS and identification of high-risk patients before hospital arrival. Moreover, pre-hospital rule-out of an ACS could prevent unnecessary emergency department visits. The safety and cost-effectiveness of referring low-risk patients with a normal POC troponin value to the general practitioner are currently being investigated in the ARTICA randomised trial. This point-of-view article demonstrates one of the potential advantages of early detection of an ACS.

Changes in automated external defibrillator use and survival after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in the Nijmegen area.

PURPOSE: Out-of-hospital cardiac arrests (OHCAs) are a major healthcare problem. Over the years, several initiatives have contributed to more lay volunteers providing cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and increased use of automated external defibrillators (AEDs) in the Netherlands. As part of a quality and outcomes program, we registered bystander CPR, AED use and outcome in the Nijmegen area. METHODS: Prospective resuscitation registry with a study cohort of non-traumatic OHCA cases from 2013-2016 and historical controls from 2008-2011. In line with previous reports, we studied patients transported to the hospital (Radboudumc, Nijmegen, the Netherlands) and excluded arrests witnessed by the emergency medical service (EMS). Primary outcomes were return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) and survival to discharge. RESULTS: In the study cohort (n = 349) the AED was attached more often than in the historical cohort (n = 180): 46% vs. 23% and the proportion of bystander CPR was higher: 78% vs. 63% (both p < 0.001). A higher proportion of patients received an AED shock (39% vs. 15%, p < 0.001) and the number of required shocks by the EMS was lower (2 vs. 4, p = 0.004). Survival to discharge was higher (47% vs. 33%, p = 0.002) without differences in ROSC. The survival benefit was restricted to patients with a shockable initial rhythm. In both cohorts, bystander CPR and AED use were independently associated with survival. CONCLUSION: In patients admitted after OHCA, survival to discharge has markedly improved to 40-50%, comparable with other Dutch registries. As increased bystander CPR and the doubled use of AEDs seem to have contributed, all civilian-based resuscitation initiatives should be encouraged.