Extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation at the emergency department: A retrospective patient selection evaluation.

BACKGROUND: There is an increasing use of extracorporeal life support in refractory cardiac arrest. Recent studies highlighted the importance of an early and accurate patient selection for this invasive procedure. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to retrospectively validate a six-criteria-screening-checklist (witnessed collapse, bystander-cardiopulmonary resuscitation/first medical contact <5 min, shockable, age <70 years, end tidal carbon dioxide >14 mmHg and pupils not anisocoric/distorted/mydriatic) as an early screening tool in patients treated with extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (eCPR) at the emergency department. DESIGN: Retrospective observational study. SETTING/PATIENTS: All patients at least 18 years of age with nontraumatic cardiac arrest and without return of spontaneous circulation before eCPR treatment at our department between January 2013 and December 2018 were included in this retrospective observational study. INTERVENTION: No specific intervention was set in this observational study. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome was the rate of patients who fulfilled all criteria, secondary outcome was 30-day and 6-month survival in accordance with the criteria. RESULTS: Overall, data from a total of 92 patients were eligible for analyses. Out of these, 27 patients (29%) met all criteria. Patients, who fulfilled all criteria, showed significantly higher odds for 30-day survival [OR 6.0 (95% CI 1.78 to 20.19)] P = 0.004. Patients, who did not fulfil all criteria, showed significantly higher rates of early mortality after eCPR initiation [OR 4.57 (95% CI 1.69 to 12.37)] P = 0.003. CONCLUSION: Patients fulfilling all inclusion criteria showed higher rates of survival after eCPR. Our results affirm that there is a possibility and even an obvious necessity for early patient selection based on standardised criteria before eCPR treatment. Large randomised trials are urgently needed to answer this question accurately.

Factors influencing door-to-triage- and triage-to-patient administration-time.

BACKGROUND: Overcrowding decreases quality of care. Triage and patient administration are possible bottlenecks. We aimed to identify factors influencing door-to-triage- and triage-to-patient administration-time in a prospective observational study at a tertiary care center with 70,000 patients per year. METHODS: Measurement of aforementioned times at convenience-sampled time intervals on 16 days. Linear regression modelling with times as dependent variable, and demographic, medical and structural factors as covariables, testing for interactions with risk factor "weekend". RESULTS: We included 360 patients (183 female (51%)). Median door-to-triage-time was 6 (IQR 3-11) minutes, triage-to-patient administration-time was 5 (IQR 3-8) minutes. Overall door-to-triage-time was significantly shorter during weekends compared to weekdays (absolute difference 3 (IQR 1-7) minutes; 5 (IQR 3-8) vs. 8 (IQR 4-15) minutes, p < 0.01). Other influencing factors were closing hours of non-emergency department healthcare facilities (3.5 min more), number of ESI 2 patients seen during the interval (3 min more for each patient per hour), and ambulance activity (2 min more for each patient per hour brought by ambulance). CONCLUSIONS: Day of time and week as well as frequency of patients with urgent conditions and those brought by ambulance significantly increased door-to-triage times. This should be kept in mind when organizing ED workflow.