Assessment of emergency physicians' performance in identifying shockable rhythm in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: an observational simulation study.

BACKGROUND: Emergency physicians can use a manual or an automated defibrillator to provide defibrillation of patients who had out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). Performance of emergency physicians in identifying shockable rhythm with a manual defibrillator has been poorly explored whereas that of automated defibrillators is well known (sensitivity 0.91-1.00, specificity 0.96-0.99). We conducted this study to estimate the sensitivity/specificity and speed of shock/no-shock decision-making by prehospital emergency physicians for shockable or non-shockable rhythm, and their preference for manual versus automated defibrillation. METHODS: We developed a web application that simulates a manual defibrillator (https://simul-shock.firebaseapp.com/). In 2019, all (262) emergency physicians of six French emergency medical services were invited to participate in a study in which 60 ECG rhythms from real OHCA recordings were successively presented to the physicians for determination of whether they would or would not administer a shock. Time to decision was recorded. Answers were compared with a gold standard (concordant answers of three experts). We report sensitivity for shockable rhythms (decision to shock) and specificity for non-shockable rhythms (decision not to shock). Physicians were also asked whether they preferred manual or automated defibrillation. RESULTS: Among 215 respondents, we were able to analyse results for 190 physicians. 57% of emergency physicians preferred manual defibrillation. Median (IQR) sensitivity for a shock delivery for shockable rhythm was 0.91 (0.81-1.00); median specificity for no-shock delivery for non-shockable rhythms was 0.91 (0.80-0.96). More precisely, sensitivities for shock delivery for ventricular tachycardia (VT) and coarse ventricular fibrillation (VF) were both 1.0 (1.0-1.0); sensitivity for fine VF was 0.6 (0.2-1). Specificity for not shocking a pulseless electrical activity (PEA) was 0.83 (0.72-0.86), and for asystole, specificity was 0.93 (0.86-1). Median speed of decision-making (in seconds) were: VT 2.0 (1.6-2.7), coarse VF 2.1 (1.7-2.9), asystole 2.4 (1.8-3.5), PEA 2.8 (2.0-4.2) and fine VF 2.8 (2.1-4.3). CONCLUSIONS: Global sensitivity and specificity were comparable with published automated external defibrillator studies. Shockable rhythms with the best clinical prognoses (VT and coarse VF) were very rapidly recognised with very good sensitivity. The decision-making for fine VF or asystole and PEA was less accurate.

Benefit of Switching Dual Antiplatelet Therapy After Acute Coronary Syndrome According to On-Treatment Platelet Reactivity: The TOPIC-VASP Pre-Specified Analysis of the TOPIC Randomized Study.

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to evaluate the impact of initial platelet reactivity on the benefit of switched strategy. BACKGROUND: TOPIC (Timing Of Platelet Inhibition after acute Coronary Syndrome) study suggested that switched dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) could improve net clinical benefit after acute coronary syndrome by preventing bleeding. METHODS: Acute coronary syndrome patients, 1 month after coronary stenting and event free, were randomly assigned to aspirin and clopidogrel (switched DAPT) or continuation of drug regimen (unchanged DAPT). All patients underwent platelet function testing at this time and were classified as low on-treatment platelet reactivity (LTPR) (platelet reactivity index vasodilator-stimulated phosphoprotein ≤20%) or non-LTPR (platelet reactivity index vasodilator-stimulated phosphoprotein >20%). The primary endpoint aimed to evaluate the impact of platelet reactivity on clinical outcomes and benefit of switched DAPT strategy. RESULTS: A total of 645 patients were included, 305 (47%) of whom were classified as LTPR. LTPR patients were less often diabetic (p = 0.01), had lower body mass index (p < 0.01), and were more often on ticagrelor (p < 0.01). Patients defined as LTPR and randomized to unchanged DAPT were at the highest risk of primary endpoint occurrence (31%; p < 0.01). Conversely, in the switched arm, LTPR patients had no significant difference in primary outcome incidence compared with non-LTPR patients (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.78; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.40 to 1.49; p = 0.45). The switched strategy was associated with important reduction in primary endpoint incidence in LTPR patients (HR: 0.29; 95% CI: 0.17 to 0.51; p < 0.01) and only numerically lower incidence in non-LTPR patients (HR: 0.79; 95% CI: 0.46 to 1.35; p = 0.39). CONCLUSIONS: Switched DAPT was superior regardless of initial platelet reactivity but the benefit was greater in LTPR patients. Indeed, the switched strategy was highly effective in this group, which had impaired prognosis with unchanged DAPT but similar prognosis after switching.