The Automated External Defibrillator: Heterogeneity of Legislation, Mapping and Use across Europe. New Insights from the ENSURE Study.

INTRODUCTION: The rapid use of an automated external defibrillator (AED) is crucial for increased survival after an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). Many factors could play a role in limiting the chance of an AED use. We aimed to verify the situation regarding AED legislation, the AED mapping system and first responders (FRs) equipped with an AED across European countries. METHODS: We performed a survey across Europe entitled "European Study about AED Use by Lay Rescuers" (ENSURE), asking the national coordinators of the European Registry of Cardiac Arrest (EuReCa) program to complete it. RESULTS: Nineteen European countries replied to the survey request for a population covering 128,297,955 inhabitants. The results revealed that every citizen can use an AED in 15 countries whereas a training certificate was required in three countries. In one country, only EMS personnel were allowed to use an AED. An AED mapping system and FRs equipped with an AED were available in only 11 countries. The AED use rate was 12-59% where AED mapping and FR systems were implemented, which was considerably higher than in other countries (0-7.9%), reflecting the difference in OHCA survival. CONCLUSIONS: Our survey highlighted a heterogeneity in AED legislation, AED mapping systems and AED use in Europe, which was reflected in different AED use and survival.

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.

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.

The European Board of Anaesthesiology recommendations for safe medication practice: First update.

These European Board of Anaesthesiology (EBA) recommendations for safe medication practice replace the first edition of the EBA recommendations published in 2011. They were updated because evidence from critical incident reporting systems continues to show that medication errors remain a major safety issue in anaesthesia, intensive care, emergency medicine and pain medicine, and there is an ongoing need for relevant up-to-date clinical guidance for practising anaesthesiologists. The recommendations are based on evidence wherever possible, with a focus on patient safety, and are primarily aimed at anaesthesiologists practising in Europe, although many will be applicable elsewhere. They emphasise the importance of correct labelling practice and the value of incident reporting so that lessons can be learned, risks reduced and a safety culture developed.

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.

Final results of MRC CRASH, a randomised placebo-controlled trial of intravenous corticosteroid in adults with head injury-outcomes at 6 months.

MRC CRASH is a randomised controlled trial (ISRCTN74459797) of the effect of corticosteroids on death and disability after head injury. We randomly allocated 10,008 adults with head injury and a Glasgow Coma Scale score of 14 or less, within 8 h of injury, to a 48-h infusion of corticosteroid (methylprednisolone) or placebo. Data at 6 months were obtained for 9673 (96.7%) patients. The risk of death was higher in the corticosteroid group than in the placebo group (1248 [25.7%] vs 1075 [22.3%] deaths; relative risk 1.15, 95% CI 1.07-1.24; p=0.0001), as was the risk of death or severe disability (1828 [38.1%] vs 1728 [36.3%] dead or severely disabled; 1.05, 0.99-1.10; p=0.079). There was no evidence that the effect of corticosteroids differed by injury severity or time since injury. These results lend support to our earlier conclusion that corticosteroids should not be used routinely in the treatment of head injury.

A factorial trial of six interventions for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting.

BACKGROUND: Untreated, one third of patients who undergo surgery will have postoperative nausea and vomiting. Although many trials have been conducted, the relative benefits of prophylactic antiemetic interventions given alone or in combination remain unknown. METHODS: We enrolled 5199 patients at high risk for postoperative nausea and vomiting in a randomized, controlled trial of factorial design that was powered to evaluate interactions among as many as three antiemetic interventions. Of these patients, 4123 were randomly assigned to 1 of 64 possible combinations of six prophylactic interventions: 4 mg of ondansetron or no ondansetron; 4 mg of dexamethasone or no dexamethasone; 1.25 mg of droperidol or no droperidol; propofol or a volatile anesthetic; nitrogen or nitrous oxide; and remifentanil or fentanyl. The remaining patients were randomly assigned with respect to the first four interventions. The primary outcome was nausea and vomiting within 24 hours after surgery, which was evaluated blindly. RESULTS: Ondansetron, dexamethasone, and droperidol each reduced the risk of postoperative nausea and vomiting by about 26 percent. Propofol reduced the risk by 19 percent, and nitrogen by 12 percent; the risk reduction with both of these agents (i.e., total intravenous anesthesia) was thus similar to that observed with each of the antiemetics. All the interventions acted independently of one another and independently of the patients' baseline risk. Consequently, the relative risks associated with the combined interventions could be estimated by multiplying the relative risks associated with each intervention. Absolute risk reduction, though, was a critical function of patients' baseline risk. CONCLUSIONS: Because antiemetic interventions are similarly effective and act independently, the safest or least expensive should be used first. Prophylaxis is rarely warranted in low-risk patients, moderate-risk patients may benefit from a single intervention, and multiple interventions should be reserved for high-risk patients.