After a century, Epinephrine's role in cardiac arrest resuscitation remains controversial.

BACKGROUND: Epinephrine is recommended in contemporary educational efforts by the American Heart Association (AHA) as central to adult Advanced Cardiac Life Support (ACLS). However, the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation (ILCOR) 2019 recommendations update describes large evidentiary gaps for epinephrine use in cardiopulmonary resuscitation, highlighting that clinical and experimental evidence do not support the current AHA recommendations. OBJECTIVE: This controversies article was written as a response to updated AHA and ILCOR adult ACLS recommendations in late 2019. This report summarizes and evaluates the evidence surrounding epinephrine for cardiac arrest with a focus on the historical perspective of epinephrine research. DISCUSSION: According to the 2019 AHA ACLS guidelines, epinephrine is an integral component of adult out-of-hospital cardiac arrest resuscitation. Epinephrine improves rates of return of spontaneous circulation and might provide benefit at different doses or in select resuscitation scenarios, such asystole as an initial rhythm at onset of resuscitation efforts. However, evidence indicates potential harms with routine use of standard dose epinephrine (1 mg/10 mL), with no improvement in neurologic or long-term outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Despite years of use and inclusion in resuscitation guidelines, epinephrine is not associated with improved neurologic outcomes. The AHA Emergency Cardiovascular Care committee should revise ACLS guidelines reflecting evidence that standard-dose epinephrine offers little benefit to successful patient recovery including neurologic outcomes. Future resuscitation guidelines should reflect this important consideration.

Benefits of adding a physician-staffed ambulance to bystander-witnessed out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: a community-based, observational study in Niigata, Japan.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess the benefits of adding a physician-staffed ambulance to bystander-witnessed out-of-hospital cardiac arrest using a community-based registry. DESIGN: Population-based, retrospective cohort study. SETTING: An urban city with approximately 800 000 residents. PARTICIPANTS: Patients aged ≥18 years with bystander-witnessed out-of-hospital cardiac arrests of medical aetiology in Niigata City, Japan, between January 2012 and December 2016, according to the Utstein style. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was 1-month survival with a favourable neurological outcome, defined as a cerebral performance category score of 1 or 2. We used logistic regression analysis to assess the association between favourable neurological outcome and prehospital physician involvement. RESULTS: During the study period, a total of 4172 cardiac arrests were registered; of these, 892 patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest were eligible for this analysis, among whom 135 (15.1%) had prehospital physician involvement and 757 (84.9%) did not have prehospital physician involvement. The percentage of favourable neurological outcomes was 20.7% (28 of 135) in those with physician involvement and 10.4% (79 of 757) in those without physician involvement (p=0.001). Using multivariable logistic regression, prehospital physician involvement had an OR for a favourable neurological outcome of 3.44 (95% CI 1.64 to 7.23). CONCLUSIONS: Among adults with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, adding a physician-staffed ambulance was associated with significantly greater favourable neurological outcomes than standard emergency medical services.

Implante de dispositivo de asistencia ventricular izquierda de larga duración en un paciente con miocardiopatía hipertrófica obstructiva / Implantation of a long-term left ventricular assist device in a patient with obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy

No disponible

Evolución en las decisiones de limitación de los tratamientos de soporte vital en una unidad de cuidados intensivos durante una década (2005-2014) / Decision trends regarding the limitation of life support treatment in an intensive care unit over a decade (2005-2014)

Objetivo. Evaluar cómo han variado las decisiones de limitación del tratamiento de soporte vital (LTSV) en una unidad de cuidados intensivos (UCI) de tercer nivel a lo largo de un período de diez años. Métodos. Estudio observacional, retrospectivo y comparativo, en la UCI de un hospital universitario terciario en España, desde enero de 2005 hasta diciembre de 2014. Mediante el análisis de la base de datos informatizada del servicio, se obtuvo la muestra de enfermos en los que se realizó LTSV en el periodo descrito. Se presentan las variables categóricas como frecuencias absolutas y porcentajes, y las cuantitativas como media y desviación estándar. La χ2 se utilizó para evaluar la significación estadística de las variables categóricas y se utilizó la t de Student en las variables cuantitativas. La relación entre las variables y la decisión de LTSV se estudió mediante regresión logística. Resultados. LTSV se realizó en 409 (4,95%) a partir de 8.258 pacientes estudiados. El análisis comparativo mostró diferencias significativas entre el valor de APACHE II el día de la decisión LTSV (p=0,0001), se produjo una modificación en la distribución del tipo de LTSV, el estado de salud de los pacientes previa al ingreso en la UCI y mortalidad en la UCI en diferentes etapas. La LTSV tipo I pasó de ser el tipo de LTSV más frecuente en el año 2005, a ser el menos una década después (26,06%; IC95%: 15,60-40,26) frente a 7,32%; IC95%: 2,52-19,43). Actualmente la LTSV tipo V se ha convertido en frecuencia en la segunda opción (19,51%; IC95%: 10,23-34,01) cuando se decide la LTSV. Conclusión. Las decisiones de LTSV han cambiado la forma y las consecuencias de tomar esta decisión. Parece razonable estandarizar registros individualizados para tal finalidad (AU)

Objective. To evaluate how the decision regarding limitation of life support treatment (LLST) has varied in a tertiary ICU over a period of ten years. Methods. An observational, retrospective and comparative study of ICU patients in a tertiary university hospital in Spain from January 2005 to December 2014. Through the analysis of the unit's computerised database, we obtained the sample of patients in whom LLST was performed in the period described. The categorical variables are described as absolute frequencies and percentages, and the quantitative variables as mean and standard deviation. Chi-square was used to assess the statistical significance of categorical variables and Student's t-test was used for quantitative variables. The relationship between variables and LLST decision was studied using logistic regression. Results. LLST was performed in 409 (4.95%) of the 8,258 patients studied. The comparative analysis showed significant differences between the APACHE II values on the day of the decision regarding LLST (p=.0001), there was a change in the distribution of the type of LLST, a change in the health status of patient prior to ICU admission and ICU mortality at different stages. Type I LLST went from the most common type of LLST in 2005 to the least common a decade later (26.06%; 95% CI: 15.60-40.26 versus 7.32%; 95% CI: 2.52-19.43). Type V LLST is currently the second most common option (19.51%; 95% CI: 10.23-34.01) when deciding on LLST. Conclusion. LLST decisions have changed the way in which this decision is made and the consequences surrounding it. It seems reasonable to standardise individualised records for this purpose (AU)

Major publications in the critical care pharmacotherapy literature in 2015.

PURPOSE: Recently published practice guidelines and research reports on pharmacotherapy in critical care patient populations are summarized. SUMMARY: The Critical Care Pharmacotherapy Literature Update (CCPLU) Group is composed of over 50 experienced critical care pharmacists who evaluate 31 peer-reviewed journals monthly to identify literature pertaining to pharmacotherapy in critical care populations. Articles are chosen for summarization in a monthly CCPLU Group publication on the basis of applicability and relevance to clinical practice and strength of study design. From January to December 2015, a total of 121 articles were summarized; of these, 3 articles presenting clinical practice guidelines and 12 articles presenting original research findings were objectively selected for inclusion in this review based on their potential to change or reinforce current evidence-based practice. The reviewed guidelines address the management of intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), adult advanced cardiac life support (ACLS) and post-cardiac arrest care, and the management of supraventricular tachycardia (SVT). The reviewed research reports address topics such as nutrition in critically ill adults, administration of ß-lactams for severe sepsis, anticoagulant selection in the context of continuous renal replacement therapy, early goal-directed therapy in septic shock, magnesium use for neuroprotection in acute stroke, and progesterone use in patients with traumatic brain injury. CONCLUSION: Important recent additions to the critical care pharmacy literature include updated joint clinical practice guidelines on the management of spontaneous ICH, ACLS, and SVT.

Advanced cardiac life support instruction: do we know tomorrow what we know today?

This study compared two instructional and evaluation methods for teaching advanced cardiac life support (ACLS) to health care professionals who were taking the ACLS course for the first time. Outcomes of the instruction were measured on completion of the course and at 3 months and 6 months postinstruction to identify differences in participants' knowledge retention, skills competency, and self-efficacy in performing ACLS. In addition, satisfaction with the teaching method was evaluated. The two methods of teaching and evaluating competencies for ACLS were (1) traditional classroom instruction plus practice and evaluation with monitors (low-fidelity simulation); and (2) classroom instruction plus practice with high-fidelity patient simulators. Participants in the study were 148 health care professionals or health care students who were novices in ACLS preparation. Participants were recruited from a large Midwest school of nursing and school of medicine, a Midwest physicians' assistant program, and a not-for-profit hospital. The findings showed no significant differences in ACLS knowledge, skills, self-efficacy, or learner satisfaction immediately after instruction or at 3 to 9 months posttraining. Retention of ACLS knowledge and skills competency over time was low in both groups; recommendations and interventions are discussed based on the study results.

Collaborative effects of bystander-initiated cardiopulmonary resuscitation and prehospital advanced cardiac life support by physicians on survival of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: a nationwide population-based observational study.

INTRODUCTION: There are inconsistent data about the effectiveness of prehospital physician-staffed advanced cardiac life support (ACLS) on the outcomes of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). Furthermore, the relative importance of bystander-initiated cardiopulmonary resuscitation (BCPR) and ACLS and the effectiveness of their combination have not been clearly demonstrated. METHODS: Using a prospective, nationwide, population-based registry of all OHCA patients in Japan, we enrolled 95,072 patients whose arrests were witnessed by bystanders and 23,127 patients witnessed by emergency medical service providers between 2005 and 2007. We divided the bystander-witnessed arrest patients into Group A (ACLS by emergency life-saving technicians without BCPR), Group B (ACLS by emergency life-saving technicians with BCPR), Group C (ACLS by physicians without BCPR) and Group D (ACLS by physicians with BCPR). The outcome data included 1-month survival and neurological outcomes determined by the cerebral performance category. RESULTS: Among the 95,072 bystander-witnessed arrest patients, 7,722 (8.1%) were alive at 1 month, including 2,754 (2.9%) with good performance and 3,171 (3.3%) with vegetative status or worse. BCPR occurred in 42% of bystander-witnessed arrests. In comparison with Group A, the rates of good-performance survival were significantly higher in Group B (odds ratio (OR), 2.23; 95% confidence interval, 2.05 to 2.42; P < 0.01) and Group D (OR, 2.80; 95% confidence interval, 2.28 to 3.43; P < 0.01), while no significant difference was seen for Group C (OR, 1.18; 95% confidence interval, 0.86 to 1.61; P = 0.32). The occurrence of vegetative status or worse at 1 month was highest in Group C (OR, 1.92; 95% confidence interval, 1.55 to 2.37; P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: In this registry-based study, BCPR significantly improved the survival of OHCA with good cerebral outcome. The groups with BCPR and ACLS by physicians had the best outcomes. However, receiving ACLS by physicians without preceding BCPR significantly increased the number of patients with neurologically unfavorable outcomes.

Reviving the conversation around CPR/DNR.

This paper examines the historical rise of both cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and the do-not-resuscitate (DNR) order and the wisdom of their continuing status in U.S. hospital practice and policy. The practice of universal presumed consent to CPR and the resulting DNR policy are the products of a particular time and were responses to particular problems. In order to keep the excesses of technology in check, the DNR policies emerged as a response to the in-hospital universal presumed consent to CPR. We live with this historical concretion, which seems to perpetuate a false culture that the patient's wishes must be followed. The authors are critical of the current U.S. climate, where CPR and DNR are viewed as two among a panoply of patient choices, and point to UK practice as an alternative. They conclude that physicians in the United States should radically rethink approaches to CPR and DNR.