MIRACLE2 Score Compared With Downtime and Current Selection Criterion for Invasive Cardiovascular Therapies After OHCA.

BACKGROUND: The MIRACLE2 score is the only risk score that does not incorporate and can be used for selection of therapies after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). OBJECTIVES: This study sought to compare the discrimination performance of the MIRACLE2 score, downtime, and current randomized controlled trial (RCT) recruitment criteria in predicting poor neurologic outcome after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). METHODS: We used the EUCAR (European Cardiac Arrest Registry), a retrospective cohort from 6 centers (May 2012-September 2022). The primary outcome was poor neurologic outcome on hospital discharge (cerebral performance category 3-5). RESULTS: A total of 1,259 patients (total downtime = 25 minutes; IQR: 15-36 minutes) were included in the study. Poor outcome occurred in 41.8% with downtime <30 minutes and in 79.3% for those with downtime >30 minutes. In a multivariable logistic regression analysis, MIRACLE2 had a stronger association with outcome (OR: 2.23; 95% CI: 1.98-2.51; P < 0.0001) than zero flow (OR: 1.07; 95% CI: 1.01-1.13; P = 0.013), low flow (OR: 1.04; 95% CI: 0.99-1.09; P = 0.054), and total downtime (OR: 0.99; 95% CI: 0.95-1.03; P = 0.52). MIRACLE2 had substantially superior discrimination for the primary endpoint (AUC: 0.877; 95% CI: 0.854-0.897) than zero flow (AUC: 0.610; 95% CI: 0.577-0.642), low flow (AUC: 0.725; 95% CI: 0.695-0.754), and total downtime (AUC: 0.732; 95% CI: 0.701-0.760). For those modeled for exclusion from study recruitment, the positive predictive value of MIRACLE2 ≥5 for poor outcome was significantly higher (0.92) than the CULPRIT-SHOCK (Culprit lesion only PCI Versus Multivessel PCI in Cardiogenic Shock) (0.80), EUROSHOCK (Testing the value of Novel Strategy and Its Cost Efficacy In Order to Improve the Poor Outcomes in Cardiogenic Shock) (0.74) and ECLS-SHOCK (Extra-corporeal life support in Cardiogenic shock) criteria (0.81) (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The MIRACLE2 score has superior prediction of outcome after OHCA than downtime and higher discrimination of poor outcome than the current RCT recruitment criteria. The potential for the MIRACLE2 score to improve the selection of OHCA patients should be evaluated formally in future RCTs.

MIRACLE2 Score and SCAI Grade to Identify Patients With Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest for Immediate Coronary Angiography.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of performing immediate coronary angiography (CAG) after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) with stratification of predicted neurologic injury and cardiogenic shock on arrival to a center. BACKGROUND: The role of immediate CAG for patients with OHCA is unclear, which may in part be explained by the majority of patients dying of hypoxic brain injury. METHODS: Between May 2012 and July 2020, patients from 5 European centers were included in the EUCAR (European Cardiac Arrest Registry). Patients were retrospectively classified into low vs high neurologic risk (MIRACLE2 score 0-3 vs ≥4) and degree of cardiogenic shock on arrival (Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions [SCAI] grade A vs B-E). A multivariable logistic regression analysis including immediate CAG was performed for the primary outcome of survival with good neurologic outcome (Cerebral Performance Category 1 or 2) at hospital discharge. RESULTS: Nine hundred twenty-six patients were included in the registry, with 405 (43.7%) in the low-risk group and 521 (56.3%) in the high-risk group. Immediate CAG was independently associated with improved survival with good neurologic outcome in the low MIRACLE2 risk group with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (OR: 11.80; 95% CI: 2.24-76.74; P = 0.048) and with SCAI grade B to E shock (OR: 3.23; 95% CI: 1.10-9.50; P = 0.031). No subgroups, including those with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and with SCAI grade B to E shock, achieved any benefit from early CAG in the high MIRACLE2 group. CONCLUSIONS: Combined classification of patients with OHCA with 12-lead electrocardiography, MIRACLE2 score 0 to 3, and SCAI grade B to E identifies a potential cohort of patients at low risk for neurologic injury who benefit most from immediate CAG.

Impact of Early (≤24 h) Versus Delayed (>24 h) Intervention in Patients With Non-ST Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction: An Observational Study of 20,882 Patients From the London Heart Attack Group.

INTRODUCTION: We aimed to investigate the optimal timing of invasive coronary angiography and subsequent intervention in non-ST-segment elevation acute myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) patients. METHODS: We examined the impact of early (≤24 h) versus delayed (>24 h) intervention in a large observational cohort of 20,882 consecutive NSTEMI patients treated with PCI between 2005 and 2015 at 8 tertiary cardiac centers in London (UK) using Cox-regression analysis and propensity matching. RESULTS: Mean age was 64.5 ± 12.7 years and 26.1% were females. A quarter (27.6%), were treated within 24 h. Patients treated within 24 h were slightly younger (62.8 ± 12.8 vs. 65.2 ± 12.6, p < 0.001), most commonly male (76% vs. 72.9%, p < 0.001) and were more frequently ventilated (2.3% vs. 1.4%, p < 0.001) and in cardiogenic shock (3.6% vs. 1.4%, p < 0.001) with dynamic changes on their ECG (84.5% vs. 76.1% p < 0.001). At a median follow up of 4.2 years (interquartile range 1.8 to 7) 17.7% of patients had died. Estimated 5-year survival in patients treated within 24 h was 84.6% vs. 81% for those treated >24 h following their presentation (p < 0.001). This survival benefit remained following adjustment for confounders; HR(delayed vs. early management) 1.11 (95%CI 1.003 to 1.23, p = 0.046). In the propensity matched cohort of 4356 patients in each group, there remained a trend for higher survival in the early intervention group (p = 0.061). CONCLUSIONS: Notwithstanding the limitations of the retrospective design, this real-world cohort of NSTEMI patients suggests that an early intervention (≤24 h) may improve mid-term survival.

A practical risk score for early prediction of neurological outcome after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: MIRACLE2.

AIMS: The purpose of this study was to develop a practical risk score to predict poor neurological outcome after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OOHCA) for use on arrival to a Heart Attack Centre. METHODS AND RESULTS: From May 2012 to December 2017, 1055 patients had OOHCA in our region, of whom 373 patients were included in the King's Out of Hospital Cardiac Arrest Registry (KOCAR). We performed prediction modelling with multivariable logistic regression to identify predictors of the primary outcome to derive a risk score. This was externally validated in two independent cohorts comprising 473 patients. The primary endpoint was poor neurological outcome at 6-month follow-up (Cerebral Performance Category 3-5). Seven independent predictors of outcome were identified: missed (unwitnessed) arrest, initial non-shockable rhythm, non-reactivity of pupils, age (60-80 years-1 point; >80 years-3 points), changing intra-arrest rhythms, low pH <7.20, and epinephrine administration (2 points). The MIRACLE2 score had an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.90 in the development and 0.84/0.91 in the validation cohorts. Three risk groups were defined-low risk (MIRACLE2 ≤2-5.6% risk of poor outcome); intermediate risk (MIRACLE2 of 3-4-55.4% of poor outcome); and high risk (MIRACLE2 ≥5-92.3% risk of poor outcome). The MIRACLE2 score had superior discrimination than the OHCA [median AUC 0.83 (0.818-0.840); P < 0.001] and Cardiac Arrest Hospital Prognosis models [median AUC 0.87 (0.860-0.870; P = 0.001] and equivalent performance with the Target Temperature Management score [median AUC 0.88 (0.876-0.887); P = 0.092]. CONCLUSIONS: The MIRACLE2 is a practical risk score for early accurate prediction of poor neurological outcome after OOHCA, which has been developed for simplicity of use on admission.

Rationale and design of: A Randomized tRial of Expedited transfer to a cardiac arrest center for non-ST elevation out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: The ARREST randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) is a global public health issue. There is wide variation in both regional and inter-hospital survival rates from OHCA and overall survival remains poor at 7%. Regionalization of care into cardiac arrest centers (CAC) improves outcomes following cardiac arrest from ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) through concentration of services and greater provider experience. The International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation (ILCOR) recommends delivery of all post-arrest patients to a CAC, but that randomized controlled trials are necessary in patients without ST elevation (STE). METHODS/DESIGN: Following completion of a pilot randomized trial to assess safety and feasibility of conducting a large-scale randomized controlled trial in patients following OHCA of presumed cardiac cause without STE, we present the rationale and design of A Randomized tRial of Expedited transfer to a cardiac arrest center for non-ST elevation OHCA (ARREST). In total 860 patients will be enrolled and randomized (1:1) to expedited transfer to CAC (24/7 access to interventional cardiology facilities, cooling and goal-directed therapies) or to the current standard of care, which comprises delivery to the nearest emergency department. Primary outcome is 30-day all-cause mortality and secondary outcomes are 30-day and 3-month neurological status and 3, 6 and 12-month mortality. Patients will be followed up for one year after enrolment. CONCLUSION: Post-arrest care is time-critical, requires a multi-disciplinary approach and may be more optimally delivered in centers with greater provider experience. This trial would help to demonstrate if regionalization of post-arrest care to CACs reduces mortality in patients without STE, which could dramatically reshape emergency care provision.

A Randomised tRial of Expedited transfer to a cardiac arrest centre for non-ST elevation ventricular fibrillation out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: The ARREST pilot randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Wide variation exists in inter-hospital survival from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). Regionalisation of care into cardiac arrest centres (CAC) may improve this. We report a pilot randomised trial of expedited transfer to a CAC following OHCA without ST-elevation. The objective was to assess the feasibility of performing a large-scale randomised controlled trial. METHODS: Adult witnessed ventricular fibrillation OHCA of presumed cardiac cause were randomised 1:1 to either: (1) treatment: comprising expedited transfer to a CAC for goal-directed therapy including access to immediate reperfusion, or (2) control: comprising current standard of care involving delivery to the geographically closest hospital. The feasibility of randomisation, protocol adherence and data collection of the primary (30-day all-cause mortality) and secondary (cerebral performance category (CPC)) and in-hospital major cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) clinical outcome measures were assessed. RESULTS: Between November 2014 and April 2016, 118 cases were screened, of which 63 patients (53%) met eligibility criteria and 40 of the 63 patients (63%) were randomised. There were no protocol deviations in the treatment arm. Data collection of primary and secondary outcomes was achieved in 83%. There was no difference in baseline characteristics between the groups: 30-day mortality (Intervention 9/18, 50% vs. Control 6/15, 40%; P=0.73), CPC 1/2 (Intervention: 9/18, 50% vs. Control 7/14, 50%; P>0.99) or MACCE (Intervention: 9/18, 50% vs. Control 6/15, 40%; P=0.73). CONCLUSIONS: These findings support the feasibility and acceptability of conducting a large-scale randomised controlled trial of expedited transfer to CAC following OHCA to address a remaining uncertainty in post-arrest care.

London ambulance source data on choking incidence for the calendar year 2016: an observational study.

INTRODUCTION: Complete foreign body airway obstruction is a life-threatening emergency, but there are limited data on its epidemiology. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of data collected routinely from London Ambulance Service calls coded as being for choking was undertaken for the calendar year of 2016. RESULTS: There were 1916 choking episodes of significant severity to call for emergency assessment in London during 2016, 0.2% of total calls requiring an ambulance response, an average of 5.2 per day. The incidence increased at the extremes of age. Calls coded as choking occurred at times consistent with lunch and dinner and less frequently at breakfast. Peak incidence occurred at Sunday lunchtimes and on Wednesday evenings. CONCLUSIONS: Choking is a substantial health problem for Londoners to seek emergency assistance. Choking is more frequent at the extremes of age with a higher incidence at lunch and dinner time. Greater public awareness of choking and its management could help to prevent avoidable deaths.