Under pressure - Association of the arm position and leading circulatory structure behind the pressure point in cardiopulmonary resuscitation patients.

BACKGROUND: Thoracic computed tomography scans (CT) are used by several study groups to investigate the circulatory structures (heart and vessels) located behind the pressure point for chest compressions. Yet, it remains unclear how the positioning of these structures is influenced by factors such as intubation, the respiratory cycle and arm positioning. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed data of adult patients with in- or out-of-hospital cardiac arrest who underwent thoracic CT imaging within one year before or up to six months after arrest. A region of interest (ROI) behind the pressure point was defined. The largest structure within this region was defined as "leading circulatory structure", which was the primary outcome. Airway status (intubated versus spontaneous breathing), respiratory cycle (inspiration, expiration, resting expiratory position), and arm position (up over the head versus down beside the trunk) served as covariates in an ordinal regression model. RESULTS: Among 500 initially screened patients, 411 (82.2 %) were included in the analysis. There was a significant association between the arm position and the leading circulatory structure behind the pressure point. However, no association was found with airway status or respiratory cycle. The most frequently identified leading circulatory structure was the left atrium (arms up: 41.8 %, down: 50.7 %), followed by the ascending aorta (up: 23.8 % vs. down: 16.7 %). The left ventricle was the leading structure in only one case (0.2 %, arms down). CONCLUSION: This study shows that arm position is significantly associated with the leading circulatory structure behind the pressure point for chest compressions in cardiac arrest.

Performance of clinical risk scores and prediction models to identify pathogenic germline variants in patients with advanced prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: Determining the frequency and distribution of pathogenic germline variants (PGVs) in Austrian prostate cancer (PCa) patients and to assess the accuracy of different clinical risk scores to correctly predict PGVs. METHODS: This cross-sectional study included 313 men with advanced PCa. A comprehensive personal and family history was obtained based on predefined questionnaires. Germline DNA sequencing was performed between 2019 and 2021 irrespective of family history, metastatic or castration status or age at diagnosis. Clinical risk scores for hereditary cancer syndromes were evaluated and a PCa-specific score was developed to assess the presence of PGVs. RESULTS: PGV presence was associated with metastasis (p = 0.047) and castration resistance (p = 0.011), but not with personal cancer history or with relatives with any type of cancer. Clinical risk scores (Manchester score, PREMM5 score, Amsterdam II criteria or Johns Hopkins criteria) showed low sensitivities (3.3-20%) for assessing the probability of PGV presence. A score specifically designed for PCa patients stratifying patients into low- or high-risk regarding PGV probability, correctly classified all PGV carriers as high-risk, whereas a third of PCa patients without PGVs was classified as low risk of the presence of PGVs. CONCLUSION: Application of common clinical risk scores based on family history are not suitable to identify PCa patients with high PGV probabilities. A PCa-specific score stratified PCa patients into low- or high-risk of PGV presence with sufficient accuracy, and germline DNA sequencing may be omitted in patients with a low score. Further studies are needed to evaluate the score.