Search

Background: The aim of this study was to evaluate the implementation of a novel extra corporeal cardiopulmonary (ECPR) program in the greater Stockholm area with focus on feasibility, safety aspects and clinical outcomes. Methods: Prospective observational study of ECPR program including patients with OHCA from January 2020 to December 2022, fulfilling ECPR criteria: age 18–65 years, initial shockable rhythm or pulseless electrical activity, witnessed arrest, bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation and refractory arrest after three cycles of advance cardiac life support. The predefined time threshold from collapse to extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) initiation was set at 60 min. Results: We included 95 patients. Of these, 22/95 (23%) had return of spontaneous circulation before ECMO initiation, 39/95 (41%) were excluded for ECMO and 34/95 (36%) had ECMO initiated out of which 23 patients were admitted alive to the ICU. ECMO-initiation within 60 min was met in 9%. In 6 patients vascular access was complicated, 2 patients had severe bleeding at access site requiring intervention. Survival to discharge among all cases was 25% (24/95). Among patients admitted to ICU on ECMO 39% (9/23) survived to discharge, of these 78% had cerebral performance category scale score 1–2 within 12 months. 8 out of 9 survivors had time from OHCA to ECMO-initiation >60 min. Conclusion: The implementation of an ECPR protocol was feasible without any major, unexpected safety aspects but did not meet the intended target time intervals. Despite this, survival rates were similar to previous studies although most survivors had >60 min to ECMO-initiation.

Background: No previous study has evaluated patients attitudes towards inclusion in an ongoing cardiac arrest clinical trial. The aim of this study was to assess patientś willingness and motives to participate in the ongoing randomized controlled drug trial “Vasopressin and Steroids in addition to Adrenaline in cardiac arrest” (VAST-A trial) in case of an in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA). Objectives: Hospitalized patients, men ≥ 18 and women ≥ 50 years, were asked for informed consent for inclusion in the VAST-A trial in case of an IHCA, the reason for approving or declining inclusion in the trial and baseline characteristics. Methods: Patients admitted to hospital were asked to give informed consent of inclusion in VAST-A in case of an IHCA during their hospital stay. Patients were also asked why they approved or declined inclusion as well as baseline characteristics questions. Results: 1,064 patients were asked about willingness to participate in the VAST-A trial, of these 902 (84.8%) patients approved inclusion. A subgroup of 411 patients were, except willingness, also asked about motives to participate or not and basic characteristics. The main reason for approving inclusion was to contribute to research (n = 328, 83.9%). The main reason for declining inclusion was concerns regarding testing the drug treatment (n = 6, 30%). Conclusion: Among hospitalized patients the vast majority gave informed consent to inclusion in an ongoing randomized cardiac arrest drug trial. The main reason for approving inclusion was to contribute to research.

Aim: Dispatcher-assisted cardiopulmonary resuscitation (DA-CPR) is time-dependent. To date, evidence-based training programmes for dispatchers are lacking. This study aimed to reach expert consensus on an educational bundle content for dispatchers to provide DA-CPR using the Delphi method. Method: An educational bundle was created by the Swedish Resuscitation Council consisting of three parts: e-learning on DA-CPR, basic life support training and audit of emergency out-of-hospital cardiac arrest calls. Thereafter, a two-round modified Delphi study was conducted between November 2022 and March 2023; 37 experts with broad clinical and/or scientific knowledge of DA-CPR were invited. In the first round, the experts participated in the e-learning module and answered a questionnaire with 13 closed and open questions, whereafter the e-learning part of the bundle was revised. In the second round, the revised e-learning part was evaluated using Likert scores (20 items). The predefined consensus level was set at 80%. Results: Delphi rounds one and two were assessed by 20 and 18 of the invited experts, respectively. In round one, 18 experts (18 of 20, 90%) stated that they did not miss any content in the programme. In round two, the scale-level content validity index based on the average method (S-CVI/AVE, 0.99) and scale-level content validity index based on universal agreement (S-CVI/UA, 0.85) exceeded the threshold level of 80%. Conclusion: Expert consensus on the educational bundle content was reached using the Delphi method. Further work is required to evaluate its effect in real-world out-of-hospital cardiac arrest calls.

Aim: In the event of an out of hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) it is recommended for a sole untrained bystander to perform compression only CPR (CO-CPR). However, it remains unknown if CO-CPR is inferior to standard CPR (S-CPR), including both compressions and ventilation, in terms of survival. One could speculate that due to the current pandemic, bystanders may be more hesitant performing mouth-to-mouth ventilation. The aim of this study is to assess the association between type of bystander CPR and survival in OHCA. Methods: This study included all patients with a bystander treated OHCA between year 2015–2019 in ages 18–100 using The Swedish Registry for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (SRCR). We compared CO-CPR to S-CPR in terms of 30-day survival using a propensity score approach based on machine learning adjusting for a large number of covariates. Results: A total of 13,481 patients were included (5,293 with S-CPR and 8,188 with CO-CPR). The matched subgroup consisted of 2994 cases in each group.Gradient boosting were the best models with regards to predictive accuracy (for type of bystander CPR) and covariate balance. The difference between S-CPR and CO-CPR in all 30 models computed on covariate adjustment and 1-to-1 matching were non-significant. In the 30 weighted models, three comparisons (S-CPR vs. CO-CPR) were significant in terms of improved survival; odds ratio for men was 1.21 (99% confidence interval (CI) 1.02–1.43; Average treatment effect (ATE)); for patients ≥73 years 1.57 (99% CI 1.17–2.12) for Average treatment effect on treated (ATT) and 1.63 (99% CI 1.18–2.25) for ATE. Remaining 27 models showed no differences. No significances remain after adjustment for multiple testing. Conclusion: We found no significant differences between S-CPR and CO-CPR in terms of survival, supporting current recommendations for untrained bystanders regarding CO-CPR.

Aim: We aimed 1) to investigate how Swedish dispatchers perform during emergency calls in accordance with the American Heart Association (AHA) goals for dispatcher-assisted cardiopulmonary resuscitation (DA-CPR), 2) calculate the potential impact on 30-day survival. Methods: This observational study includes a random sample of 1000 out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) emergency ambulance calls during 2018 in Sweden. Voice logs were audited to evaluate dispatchers’ handling of emergency calls according to the AHA performance goals. Number of possible additional survivors was estimated assuming the timeframes of the AHA performance goals was achieved. Results: A total of 936 cases were included. An OHCA was recognized by a dispatcher in 79% (AHA goal 75%). In recognizable OHCA, dispatchers recognized 85% (AHA goal 95%). Dispatch-directed compressions were given in 61% (AHA goal 75%). Median time to OHCA recognition was 113 s [interquartile range (IQR), 62, 204 s] (AHA goal