Search

BackgroundPatients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) complicated by an out-of-hospital-cardiac-arrest (OHCA) may vary widely in their probability of dying. Large variation in mortality may have implications for current national efforts to benchmark operator and hospital mortality rates for coronary angiography. We aimed to build a risk-adjustment model of in-hospital mortality among OHCA survivors with concurrent STEMI.MethodsWithin the Cardiac Arrest Registry to Enhance Survival (CARES), we included adults with OHCA and STEMI who underwent emergent angiography within 2 hours of hospital arrival between January 2013 and December 2019. Using multivariable logistic regression to adjust for patient and cardiac arrest factors, we developed a risk-adjustment model for in-hospital mortality and examined variation in patients' predicted mortality.ResultsOf 2,999 patients (mean age 61.2 ± 12.0, 23.1% female, 64.6% white), 996 (33.2%) died during their hospitalization. The final risk-adjustment model included higher age (OR per 10-year increase, 1.50 [95% CI: 1.39-1.63]), unwitnessed OHCA (OR, 2.51 [1.99-3.16]), initial non-shockable rhythm [OR, 5.66 [4.52-7.13]), lack of sustained pulse for > 20 minutes (OR, 2.52 [1.88-3.36]), and longer resuscitation time (increased with each 10-minute interval) (c-statistic = 0.804 with excellent calibration). There was large variability in predicted mortality: median, 25.2%, inter-quartile-range: 14.0% to 47.8%, 10th-90th percentile: 8.2 % to 74.1%.ConclusionsIn a large national registry, we identified 5 key predictors for mortality in patients with STEMI and OHCA and found wide variability in mortality risk. Our findings suggest that current national benchmarking efforts for coronary angiography, which simply adjusts for the presence of OHCA, may not adequately capture patient case-mix severity.

OBJECTIVES: Contrary to advanced cardiac life support guidelines that recommend immediate defibrillation for shockable in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA), epinephrine administration before first defibrillation is common and associated with lower survival at a "patient-level." Whether this practice varies across hospitals and its association with "hospital-level" IHCA survival remains unknown. The purpose of this study was to determine hospital variation in rates of epinephrine administration before defibrillation for shockable IHCA and its association with IHCA survival. DESIGN: Observational cohort study. SETTING: Five hundred thirteen hospitals participating in the Get With The Guidelines Resuscitation Registry. PATIENTS: A total of 37,668 adult patients with IHCA due to an initial shockable rhythm from 2000 to 2019. INTERVENTIONS: Epinephrine before first defibrillation. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Using multivariable hierarchical regression, we examined hospital variation in epinephrine administration before first defibrillation and its association with hospital-level rates of risk-adjusted survival. The median hospital rate of epinephrine administration before defibrillation was 18.8%, with large variation across sites (range, 0-68.8%; median odds ratio: 1.54; 95% CI, 1.47-1.61). Major teaching status and annual IHCA volume were associated with hospital rate of epinephrine administration before defibrillation. Compared with hospitals with the lowest rate of epinephrine administration before defibrillation (Q1), there was a stepwise decline in risk-adjusted survival at hospitals with higher rates of epinephrine administration before defibrillation (Q1: 44.3%, Q2: 43.4%; Q3: 41.9%; Q4: 40.3%; p for trend < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Administration of epinephrine before defibrillation in shockable IHCA is common and varies markedly across U.S. hospitals. Hospital rates of epinephrine administration before defibrillation were associated with a significant stepwise decrease in hospital rates of risk-adjusted survival. Efforts to prioritize immediate defibrillation for patients with shockable IHCA and avoid early epinephrine administration are urgently needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In-hospital cardiac arrest during cardiac catheterization is not uncommon. The extent of variation in survival after cardiac arrest occurring in the cardiac catheterization laboratory (CCL) and underlying factors are not well known. The aim of this study was to identify the factors associated with higher survival rates after an index cardiac arrest in the CCL. Within the GWTG (Get With The Guidelines)–Resuscitation registry, patients ≥18 years of age who had index in-hospital cardiac arrest in the CCL between January 1, 2003, and December 31, 2017, were identified. Hierarchical models were used to adjust for demographics, comorbidities, and cardiac arrest characteristics to generate risk-adjusted survival rates (RASRs) to discharge for each hospital with ≥5 cases during the study period. Median OR was used to quantify the extent of hospital-level variation in RASR. The study included 4,787 patients from 231 hospitals. The median RASR was 36% (IQR: 21%) and varied from a median of 20% to 52% among hospitals in the lowest and highest tertiles of RASR, respectively. The median OR was 1.71 (95% CI: 1.52-1.87), suggesting that the odds of survival for patients with identical characteristics with in-hospital cardiac arrest in the CCL from 2 randomly chosen different hospitals varied by 71%. Hospitals with greater annual numbers of cardiac arrest cases in the CCL had higher RASRs. Even in controlled settings such as the CCL, there is significant hospital-level variation in survival after in-hospital cardiac arrest, which suggests an important opportunity to improve resuscitation outcomes in procedural areas. [Display omitted] [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: For out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA), assignment of race/ethnicity data can be challenging. Validation of race/ethnicity in registry data with patients' self-reported race/ethnicity would provide insights regarding misclassification.Methods: Using recently linked 2013-2019 Cardiac Arrest Registry to Enhance Survival (CARES) data with Medicare files, we examined the concordance of race/ethnicity in CARES with self-reported race/ethnicity in Medicare. Among patients with unknown race/ethnicity in CARES, race/ethnicity data from Medicare files were reported.Results: Of 26,875 patients in the linked data, 5757 (21.4%) had unknown race/ethnicity in CARES. Of the remaining 21,118 patients, 14,284 (67.6%) were identified in CARES as non-Hispanic White, 4771 (22.6%) as non-Hispanic Black, 1213 (5.7%) as Hispanic, 760 (3.6%) as Asian or Pacific Islander, and 90 (0.4%) as American Indian or Alaskan Native. The concordance rate for race/ethnicity between CARES and Medicare was 93.4% for patients reported as non-Hispanic White in CARES, 89.1% for non-Hispanic Blacks, 74.6% for Hispanics, 69.6% for Asians and Pacific Islanders, and 37.8% for American Indian or Alaskan Natives. For the 5757 patients with unknown race/ethnicity in CARES, 3973 (69.0%) self-reported in Medicare as non-Hispanic White, 617 (10.7%) as non-Hispanic Black, 425 (7.4%) as Hispanic, 491 (8.5%) as Asian or Pacific Islander, and 52 (0.9%) as American Indian or Alaskan Native. Race/ethnicity remained unknown in 199 (3.5%) of patients.Conclusion: Race/ethnicity in CARES was highly concordant with self-reported race/ethnicity in Medicare, especially for non-Hispanic White and Black individuals. For patients with unknown race/ethnicity data in CARES, the vast majority were of White race. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Although rates of survival to hospital discharge after in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA) have improved over the last decade, it is unknown if these survival gains are sustained after hospital discharge. Objective To examine 1-year survival trends overall and by rhythm after IHCA. Methods Using Medicare beneficiaries (age ≥ 65 years) with IHCA occurring between 2000 and 2011 at Get With The Guidelines®-Resuscitation Registry participating hospitals we used multivariable regression, to examine temporal trends in risk-adjusted rates of 1-year survival. Results Among 45,567 patients with IHCA, the unadjusted 1-year survival was 9.4%. Unadjusted 1-year survival was 21.8% among the 9,223 (20.2%) of patients with Ventricular Fibrillation or Pulseless Ventricular Tachycardia (VF/VT) and 6.2% among the 36,344 (79.8%) of patients with Pulseless Electrical Activity or asystole (PEA/asystole). After adjustment for patient and arrest characteristics, 1-year survival increased over time for all IHCA from 8.9% in 2000–2001 to 15.2% in 2011 (adjusted rate ratio [RR] per year, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.03–1.06; P < 0.001 for trend). Improvements in 1-year risk adjusted survival were also observed for VF/VT (19.4% in 2000–2001 to 25.6% in 2011 [RR per year, 1.02; 95% CI, 1.01–1.04; P 0.004 for trend]) and PEA/asystole arrests (4.7% in 2000–2001 to 10.2% in 2011 [RR per year, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.05–1.08; P < 0.001 for trend]). Conclusion Among Medicare beneficiaries in the GWTG-Resuscitation registry, 1-year survival after IHCA has increased for over the past decade. Temporal improvements in survival were noted for both shockable and non-shockable presenting arrest rhythms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Risk-standardized survival rates (RSSR) for in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA) have been widely used for hospital benchmarking and research. The novel coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has led to a substantial decline in IHCA survival as COVID-19 infection is associated with markedly lower survival. Therefore, there is a need to update the model for computing RSSRs for IHCA given the COVID-19 pandemic. Within Get With The Guidelines ® -Resuscitation, we identified 53,922 adult patients with IHCA from March, 2020 to December, 2021 (the COVID-19 era). Using hierarchical logistic regression, we derived and validated an updated model for survival to hospital discharge and compared the performance of this updated RSSR model with the previous model. The survival rate was 21.0% and 20.8% for the derivation and validation cohorts, respectively. The model had good discrimination (C-statistic 0.72) and excellent calibration. The updated parsimonious model comprised 13 variables—all 9 predictors in the original model as well as 4 additional predictors, including COVID-19 infection status. When applied to data from the pre-pandemic period of 2018–2019, there was a strong correlation (r = 0.993) between RSSRs obtained from the updated and the previous models. We have derived and validated an updated model to risk-standardize hospital rates of survival for IHCA. The updated model yielded RSSRs that were similar to the initial model for IHCAs in the pre-pandemic period and can be used for supporting ongoing efforts to benchmark hospitals and facilitate research that uses data from either before or after the emergence of COVID-19. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: For comatose survivors of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA), current guidelines recommend targeted temperature management (TTM) with a goal temperature of 32°C - 36°C for at least 24 hours. We examined adherence to temperature targets, quantified as time-in-therapeutic range (TTR), and association of TTR with survival and neurologic outcomes.Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of the Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium-Continuous Chest Compressions trial, including adults with OHCA who underwent TTM for >12 hours. We imputed continuous temperatures between consecutive temperature measurements using the linear interpolation method and calculated TTR for multiple target temperatures. The association of TTR with survival to hospital discharge and favorable neurological outcome was evaluated using hierarchical regression models.Main Results: Among 2,637 patients (mean age 62.3 years, 29.9% female), the median duration of TTR for TTM between 32°C - 36°C was 23 (IQR: 21-24) hours with a median time outside therapeutic range of 0.9 (IQR: 0.0 - 4.2) hours. In risk-adjusted analyses, there was no association of TTR of 32°C - 36°C with overall survival (OR 1.00 [95% CI, 0.90 - 1.10]) or favorable neurologic outcome (1.02 [95% CI, 0.90 - 1.14]). However, in assessments of TTR 33°C - 36°C, there was a significant association with favorable neurologic survival (OR 1.12 [1.01 - 1.25]) but not overall survival (OR 1.04 [0.94 - 1.15]).Conclusions: Among patients with OHCA who underwent TTM, we found variability in adherence to guideline-recommended treatment targets. Higher TTR was not associated with overall survival, but for certain temperature thresholds, TTR was associated with favorable neurologic outcome. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: For patients with in-hospital cardiac arrests attributable to nonshockable rhythms, delays in epinephrine administration beyond 5 minutes is associated with worse survival. However, the extent of hospital variation in delayed epinephrine administration and its effect on hospital-level outcomes is unknown.Methods: Within Get With The Guidelines-Resuscitation, we identified 103 932 adult patients (≥18 years) at 548 hospitals with an in-hospital cardiac arrest attributable to a nonshockable rhythm who received at least 1 dose of epinephrine between 2000 and 2014. We constructed 2-level hierarchical regression models to quantify hospital variation in rates of delayed epinephrine administration (>5 minutes) and its association with hospital rates of survival to discharge and survival with functional recovery.Results: Overall, 13 213 (12.7%) patients had delays to epinephrine, and this rate varied markedly across hospitals (range, 0%-53.8%). The odds of delay in epinephrine administration were 58% higher at 1 randomly selected hospital in comparison with a similar patient at another randomly selected hospital (median odds ratio, 1.58; 95% confidence interval, 1.51-1.64). The median risk-standardized survival rate was 12.0% (range, 5.4%-31.9%), and the risk-standardized survival with functional recovery was 7.4% (range, 0.9%-30.8%). There was an inverse correlation between a hospital's rate of delayed epinephrine administration and its risk-standardized rate of survival to discharge (ρ=-0.22, P<0.0001) and survival with functional recovery (ρ=-0.14, P=0.001). In comparison with a median survival rate of 12.9% (interquartile range, 11.1%-15.4%) at hospitals in the lowest quartile of epinephrine delay, risk-standardized survival was 16% lower at hospitals in the quartile with the highest rate of epinephrine delays (10.8%; interquartile range, 9.7%-12.7%).Conclusions: Delays in epinephrine administration following in-hospital cardiac arrest are common and variy across hospitals. Hospitals with high rates of delayed epinephrine administration had lower rates of overall survival for in-hospital cardiac arrest attributable to nonshockable rhythm. Further studies are needed to determine whether improving hospital performance on time to epinephrine administration, especially at hospitals with poor performance on this metric, will lead to improved outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Cardiac arrest is a major public health concern worldwide. The extent and types of randomized controlled trials (RCT)-our most reliable source of clinical evidence-conducted in these high-risk patients over recent years are largely unknown.Methods and Results: We performed a systematic review, identifying all RCTs published in PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library from 1995 to 2014 that focused on the acute treatment of nontraumatic cardiac arrest in adults. We then extracted data on the setting of study populations, types and timing of interventions studied, risk of bias, outcomes reported, and how these factors have changed over time. Over this 20-year period, 92 RCTs were published containing 64 309 patients (median, 225.5 per trial). Of these, 81 RCTs (88.0%) involved out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, whereas 4 (4.3%) involved in-hospital cardiac arrest and 7 (7.6%) included both. Eighteen RCTs (19.6%) were performed in the United States, 68 (73.9%) were performed outside the United States, and 6 (6.5%) were performed in both settings. Thirty-eight RCTs (41.3%) evaluated drug therapy, 39 (42.4%) evaluated device therapy, and 15 (16.3%) evaluated protocol improvements. Seventy-four RCTs (80.4%) examined interventions during the cardiac arrest, 15 (16.3%) examined post cardiac arrest treatment, and 3 (3.3%) studied both. Overall, reporting of the risk of bias was limited. The most common outcome reported was return of spontaneous circulation: 86 (93.5%) with only 22 (23.9%) reporting survival beyond 6 months. Fifty-three RCTs (57.6%) reported global ordinal outcomes, whereas 15 (16.3%) reported quality-of-life. RCTs in the past 5 years were more likely to be focused on protocol improvements and postcardiac arrest care.Conclusions: Important gaps in RCTs of cardiac arrest treatments exist, especially those examining in-hospital cardiac arrest, protocol improvement, postcardiac arrest care, and long-term or quality-of-life outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Importance: Therapeutic hypothermia is used for patients following both out-of-hospital and in-hospital cardiac arrest. However, randomized trials on its efficacy for the in-hospital setting do not exist, and comparative effectiveness data are limited.Objective: To evaluate the association between therapeutic hypothermia and survival after in-hospital cardiac arrest.Design, Setting, and Patients: In this cohort study, within the national Get With the Guidelines-Resuscitation registry, 26 183 patients successfully resuscitated from an in-hospital cardiac arrest between March 1, 2002, and December 31, 2014, and either treated or not treated with hypothermia at 355 US hospitals were identified. Follow-up ended February 4, 2015.Exposure: Induction of therapeutic hypothermia.Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was survival to hospital discharge. The secondary outcome was favorable neurological survival, defined as a Cerebral Performance Category score of 1 or 2 (ie, without severe neurological disability). Comparisons were performed using a matched propensity score analysis and examined for all cardiac arrests and separately for nonshockable (asystole and pulseless electrical activity) and shockable (ventricular fibrillation and pulseless ventricular tachycardia) cardiac arrests.Results: Overall, 1568 of 26 183 patients with in-hospital cardiac arrest (6.0%) were treated with therapeutic hypothermia; 1524 of these patients (mean [SD] age, 61.6 [16.2] years; 58.5% male) were matched by propensity score to 3714 non-hypothermia-treated patients (mean [SD] age, 62.2 [17.5] years; 57.1% male). After adjustment, therapeutic hypothermia was associated with lower in-hospital survival (27.4% vs 29.2%; relative risk [RR], 0.88 [95% CI, 0.80 to 0.97]; risk difference, -3.6% [95% CI, -6.3% to -0.9%]; P = .01), and this association was similar (interaction P = .74) for nonshockable cardiac arrest rhythms (22.2% vs 24.5%; RR, 0.87 [95% CI, 0.76 to 0.99]; risk difference, -3.2% [95% CI, -6.2% to -0.3%]) and shockable cardiac arrest rhythms (41.3% vs 44.1%; RR, 0.90 [95% CI, 0.77 to 1.05]; risk difference, -4.6% [95% CI, -10.9% to 1.7%]). Therapeutic hypothermia was also associated with lower rates of favorable neurological survival for the overall cohort (hypothermia-treated group, 17.0% [246 of 1443 patients]; non-hypothermia-treated group, 20.5% [725 of 3529 patients]; RR, 0.79 [95% CI, 0.69 to 0.90]; risk difference, -4.4% [95% CI, -6.8% to -2.0%]; P < .001) and for both rhythm types (interaction P = .88).Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with in-hospital cardiac arrest, use of therapeutic hypothermia compared with usual care was associated with a lower likelihood of survival to hospital discharge and a lower likelihood of favorable neurological survival. These observational findings warrant a randomized clinical trial to assess efficacy of therapeutic hypothermia for in-hospital cardiac arrest. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Most studies on out-of-hospital cardiac arrest have primarily focused on in-hospital or short-term survival. Little is known about long-term outcomes and resource use among survivors of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.Methods: In this observationsl study, we describe overall long-term outcomes for patients from the national Cardiac Arrest Registry to Enhance Survival linked to Medicare files to create the Cardiac Arrest Registry to Enhance Survival: Mortality, Events, and Costs for Cardiac Arrest survivors dataset. Cardiac Arrest Registry to Enhance Survival data between 2013 and 2019 were linked to Medicare data using probabilistic matching algorithms. Overall long-term mortality, readmissions, and index hospitalization costs are reported for the overall cohort.Results: Among 56 425 patients who were 65 years of age or older in Cardiac Arrest Registry to Enhance Survival who survived to hospital admission, 26 875 (47.6%) were successfully linked to Medicare files. Mean (+SD) cost of the index hospitalization was $23 262+$24 199 and the median cost was $14 636 (interquartile range, $9930-$30 033). Overall, 8676 (32.3%) survived to hospital discharge with 38.0% discharged home, 11.8% to hospice care, and the remaining 50.2% to other inpatient, skilled nursing care, or rehabilitation facilities. Mortality after discharge was initially high (27.0% at 3 months) and then increased gradually, with 1- and 3-year mortality of 37.1% and 50.1%, respectively. During the first year, 40.1% were readmitted at least once, with 19.7% readmitted on > 1 occasion.Conclusions: The Cardiac Arrest Registry to Enhance Survival: Mortality, Events, and Costs for Cardiac Arrest survivors registry includes rich data on postdischarge outcomes and resource utilization. Use of this dataset will enable future investigations on the long-term effectiveness, costs, and cost-effectiveness of various interventions for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in elderly patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Cardiac arrest is a leading cause of death in developed countries. Although a majority of cardiac arrest patients die during the acute event, a substantial proportion of cardiac arrest deaths occur in patients following successful resuscitation and can be attributed to the development of post-cardiac arrest syndrome. There is growing recognition that integrated post-resuscitation care, which encompasses targeted temperature management (TTM), early coronary angiography and comprehensive critical care, can improve patient outcomes. TTM has been shown to improve survival and neurological outcome in patients who remain comatose especially following out-of-hospital cardiac arrest due to ventricular arrhythmias. Early coronary angiography and revascularisation if needed may also be beneficial during the post-resuscitation phase, based on data from observational studies. In addition, resuscitated patients usually require intensive care, which includes mechanical ventilator, haemodynamic support and close monitoring of blood gases, glucose, electrolytes, seizures and other disease-specific intervention. Efforts should be taken to avoid premature withdrawal of life-supporting treatment, especially in patients treated with TTM. Given that resources and personnel needed to provide high-quality post-resuscitation care may not exist at all hospitals, professional societies have recommended regionalisation of post-resuscitation care in specialised 'cardiac arrest centres' as a strategy to improve cardiac arrest outcomes. Finally, evidence for post-resuscitation care following in-hospital cardiac arrest is largely extrapolated from studies in patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Future studies need to examine the effectiveness of different post-resuscitation strategies, such as TTM, in patients with in-hospital cardiac arrest. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background--Although out-of-hospital cardiac arrest is common because of acute myocardial infarction, it is unknown whether early coronary angiography is associated with improved survival in these patients. Methods and Results--Using data from the Cardiac Arrest Registry to Enhance Survival (CARES), we identified 4029 adult patients admitted to 374 hospitals after successful resuscitation from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest because of ventricular fibrillation, pulseless ventricular tachycardia, or unknown shockable rhythm between January 2010 and December 2013. Early coronary angiography (occurring within one calendar day of cardiac arrest) was performed in 1953 (48.5%) patients, of whom 1253 (64.2%) received coronary revascularization. Patients who underwent early coronary angiography were younger (59.9 versus 62.0 years); more likely to be men (78.1% versus 64.3%), have a witnessed arrest (84.6% versus 77.4%), and have ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (32.7% versus 7.9%); and less likely to have known cardiovascular disease (22.8% versus 35.0%), diabetes mellitus (11.0% versus 17.0%), and renal disease (1.8% versus 5.8%; P<0.01 for all comparisons). In analysis of 1312 propensity score-matched pairs, early coronary angiography was associated with higher odds of survival to discharge (odds ratio 1.52 [95% confidence interval 1.28-1.80]; P<0.0001) and survival with favorable neurological outcome (odds ratio 1.47 [95% confidence interval 1.25-1.71]; P<0.0001). Further adjustment for coronary revascularization in our models significantly attenuated both odds ratios, suggesting that revascularization was a key mediator of the survival benefit. Conclusions--Among initial survivors of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest caused by VF or pulseless VT, we found early coronary angiography was associated with higher odds of survival to discharge and favorable neurological outcome. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Although rapid response teams have been widely promoted as a strategy to reduce unexpected hospital deaths, most studies of rapid response teams have not adjusted for secular trends in mortality before their implementation. We examined whether implementation of a rapid response team was associated with a reduction in hospital mortality after accounting for preimplementation mortality trends.Methods: Among 56 hospitals in Get With The Guidelines-Resuscitation linked to Medicare, we calculated the annual rates of case mix-adjusted mortality for each hospital during 2000 to 2014. We constructed a hierarchical log-binomial regression model of mortality over time (calendar-year), incorporating terms to capture the effect of rapid response teams, to determine whether implementation of rapid response teams was associated with reduction in hospital mortality that was larger than expected based on preimplementation trends, while adjusting for hospital case mix index.Results: The median annual number of Medicare admissions was 5214 (range, 408-18 398). The median duration of preimplementation and postimplementation period was 7.6 years (≈2.5 million admissions) and 7.2 years (≈2.6 million admissions), respectively. Hospital mortality was decreasing by 2.7% annually during the preimplementation period. Implementation of rapid response teams was not associated with a change in mortality during the initial year (relative risk for model intercept, 0.98 [95% CI, 0.94-1.02]; P=0.30) or in the mortality trend (relative risk for model slope, 1.01 per year [95% CI, 0.99-1.02]; P=0.30). Among individual hospitals, implementation of a rapid response team was associated with a lower-than-expected mortality at only 4 (7.1%) and higher-than-expected mortality at 2 (3.7%) hospitals.Conclusions: Among a large and diverse sample of US hospitals, we did not find implementation of rapid response teams to be associated with reduction in hospital mortality. Studies are needed to understand best practices for rapid response team implementation, to ensure that hospital investment in these teams improves patient outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Importance: After patients survive an in-hospital cardiac arrest, discussions should occur about prognosis and preferences for future resuscitative efforts.Objective: To assess whether patients' decisions for do-not-resuscitate (DNR) orders after a successful resuscitation from in-hospital cardiac arrest are aligned with their expected prognosis.Design, Setting, and Participants: Within Get With The Guidelines-Resuscitation, we identified 26,327 patients with return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) after in-hospital cardiac arrest between April 2006 and September 2012 at 406 US hospitals. Using a previously validated prognostic tool, each patient's likelihood of favorable neurological survival (ie, without severe neurological disability) was calculated. The proportion of patients with DNR orders within each prognosis score decile and the association between DNR status and actual favorable neurological survival were examined.Exposures: Do-not-resuscitate orders within 12 hours of ROSC.Main Outcomes and Measures: Likelihood of favorable neurological survival.Results: Overall, 5944 (22.6% [95% CI, 22.1%-23.1%]) patients had DNR orders within 12 hours of ROSC. This group was older and had higher rates of comorbidities (all P < .05) than patients without DNR orders. Among patients with the best prognosis (decile 1), 7.1% (95% CI, 6.1%-8.1%) had DNR orders even though their predicted rate of favorable neurological survival was 64.7% (95% CI, 62.8%-66.6%). Among patients with the worst expected prognosis (decile 10), 36.0% (95% CI, 34.2%-37.8%) had DNR orders even though their predicted rate for favorable neurological survival was 4.0% (95% CI, 3.3%-4.7%) (P for both trends <.001). This pattern was similar when DNR orders were redefined as within 24 hours, 72 hours, and 5 days of ROSC. The actual rate of favorable neurological survival was higher for patients without DNR orders (30.5% [95% CI, 29.9%-31.1%]) than it was for those with DNR orders (1.8% [95% CI, 1.6%-2.0%]). This pattern of lower survival among patients with DNR orders was seen in every decile of expected prognosis.Conclusions and Relevance: Although DNR orders after in-hospital cardiac arrest were generally aligned with patients' likelihood of favorable neurological survival, only one-third of patients with the worst prognosis had DNR orders. Patients with DNR orders had lower survival than those without DNR orders, including those with the best prognosis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background--Despite intensive efforts over many years, the United States has made limited progress in improving rates of survival from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Recently, national organizations, such as the American Heart Association, have focused on promoting bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation, use of automated external defibrillators, and other performance improvement efforts. Methods and Results--Using the Cardiac Arrest Registry to Enhance Survival (CARES), a prospective clinical registry, we identified 70 027 U.S. patients who experienced an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest between October 2005 and December 2012. Using multilevel Poisson regression, we examined temporal trends in risk-adjusted survival. After adjusting for patient and cardiac arrest characteristics, risk-adjusted rates of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest survival increased from 5.7% in the reference period of 2005 to 2006 to 7.2% in 2008 (adjusted risk ratio, 1.27; 95% confidence interval, 1.12--1.43; P<0.001). Survival improved more modestly to 8.3% in 2012 (adjusted risk ratio, 1.47; 95% confidence interval, 1.26--1.70; P<0.001). This improvement in survival occurred in both shockable and nonshockable arrest rhythms (P for interaction=0.22) and was also accompanied by better neurological outcomes among survivors (P for trend=0.01). Improved survival was attributable to both higher rates of prehospital survival, where risk-adjusted rates increased from 14.3% in 2005 to 2006 to 20.8% in 2012 (P for trend<0.001), and in-hospital survival (P for trend=0.015). Rates of bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation and automated external defibrillator use modestly increased during the study period and partly accounted for prehospital survival trends. Conclusions--Data drawn from a large subset of U.S communities suggest that rates of survival from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest have improved among sites participating in a performance improvement registry. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Maternal in-hospital cardiac arrest is a rare event with the potential for resuscitation treatment delays because of the difficulty accessing hospital obstetrical units and limited simulation training or resuscitation experience of obstetrical staff. However, it is unclear whether survival rates and processes of care differ between women with a maternal in-hospital cardiac arrest and those with a nonmaternal in-hospital cardiac arrest.Objective: We aimed determine whether to there are delays in process measures and differences in survival outcomes between pregnant and nonpregnant women who have in-hospital cardiac arrest.Study Design: Using data from 2000 to 2019 in the Get With The Guidelines-Resuscitation registry, we compared resuscitation outcomes between women aged 18 to 50 years with a maternal or nonmaternal in-hospital cardiac arrest. Using a nonparsimonious propensity score, we matched patients with a maternal in-hospital cardiac arrest to as many as 10 women with a nonmaternal in-hospital cardiac arrest. We constructed conditional logistic regression models to compare survival outcomes (survival to discharge, favorable neurologic survival [discharge cerebral performance score of 1], and return of spontaneous circulation) and processes of care (delayed defibrillation [>2 minutes] and administration of epinephrine [>5 minutes]) between women with a maternal in-hospital cardiac arrest vs those with a nonmaternal in-hospital cardiac arrest.Results: Overall, 421 women with a maternal in-hospital cardiac arrest were matched by propensity score to 2316 women with a nonmaternal in-hospital cardiac arrest. The mean age among propensity score-matched women with a maternal in-hospital cardiac arrest was 31.4 (standard deviation, 6.5) years, where 33.7% were of Black race and 86.9% had an initial nonshockable cardiac arrest rhythm. Unadjusted survival rates were higher in women with a maternal in-hospital cardiac arrest than in women with a nonmaternal in-hospital cardiac arrest: survival to discharge of 45.1% vs 26.5%, survival with cerebral performance category 1 status of 36.1% vs 17.7%, and return of spontaneous circulation of 75.8% vs 70.6%. After adjustment, there was no difference in the likelihood of survival to discharge (odds ratio, 1.19; 95% confidence interval, 0.82-1.73) or return of spontaneous circulation (odds ratio, 0.94; 95% confidence interval, 0.65-1.35) between women with a maternal in-hospital cardiac arrest and those with a nonmaternal in-hospital cardiac arrest. However, women with a maternal in-hospital cardiac arrest were more likely to have favorable neurologic survival (odds ratio, 1.57; 95% confidence interval, 1.06-2.33). Compared with women with a nonmaternal in-hospital cardiac arrest, women with a maternal in-hospital cardiac arrest had similar rates of delayed defibrillation (42.5% vs 34.4%; odds ratio, 1.14 [95% confidence interval, 0.41-3.18]; P=.31) and delayed administration of epinephrine (13.8% vs 10.6%; odds ratio, 0.96 [95% confidence interval, 0.50-1.86]; P=.09).Conclusion: Although concerns have been raised about resuscitation outcomes in women with a maternal in-hospital cardiac arrest, the rates of survival and resuscitation processes of care were not worse in women with a maternal in-hospital cardiac arrest. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: The purpose of this study is to develop a method for risk-standardizing hospital survival after cardiac arrest. Background: A foundation with which hospitals can improve quality is to be able to benchmark their risk-adjusted performance against other hospitals, something that cannot currently be done for survival after in-hospital cardiac arrest. Methods: Within the Get With The Guidelines (GWTG)-Resuscitation registry, we identified 48,841 patients admitted between 2007 and 2010 with an in-hospital cardiac arrest. Using hierarchical logistic regression, we derived and validated a model for survival to hospital discharge and calculated risk-standardized survival rates (RSSRs) for 272 hospitals with at least 10 cardiac arrest cases. Results: The survival rate was 21.0% and 21.2% for the derivation and validation cohorts, respectively. The model had good discrimination (C-statistic 0.74) and excellent calibration. Eighteen variables were associated with survival to discharge, and a parsimonious model contained 9 variables with minimal change in model discrimination. Before risk adjustment, the median hospital survival rate was 20% (interquartile range: 14% to 26%), with a wide range (0% to 85%). After adjustment, the distribution of RSSRs was substantially narrower: median of 21% (interquartile range: 19% to 23%; range 11% to 35%). More than half (143 [52.6%]) of hospitals had at least a 10% positive or negative absolute change in percentile rank after risk standardization, and 50 (23.2%) had a ≥20% absolute change in percentile rank. Conclusions: We have derived and validated a model to risk-standardize hospital rates of survival for in-hospital cardiac arrest. Use of this model can support efforts to compare hospitals in resuscitation outcomes as a foundation for quality assessment and improvement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents the results of a research that linked data from a large, national registry of in-hospital cardiac arrests with Medicare claims files. Findings reveal that survival and readmission rates varied according to the demographic characteristics of the patients and neurologic status at discharge. It is cited that 60% of elderly survivors were alive at 1 year, and the rate of 3-year survival was the same to those with heart failure.

The article offers information regarding duration of resuscitation attempts. It presents a case study for analyzing survival after in-hospital cardiac arrest of patients and variation in duration of resuscitation attempts. It discusses the methodology for the study conducted which used median duration of resuscitation, multilevel regression models, and risk-adjusted survival. INSET: Panel: Research in context.

The article discusses a study that developed a simple, bedside prediction tool that provides accurate estimation of favorable neurological survival after in-hospital cardiac arrest. Findings show that the rates of favorable neurological survival were similar in the derivation cohort and validation cohort patients. Evidence suggests that the tool provides accurate prognostication after cardiac arrest for physicians, patients and families.

The article focuses on a study which evaluated the association between automated external defibrillators (AEDs) use and survival for in-hospital cardiac arrest. The researchers examined 11,695 hospitalized patients who experienced cardiac arrests between January 1, 2000 to August 26, 2008 at U.S. hospitals following the introduction of AEDs on general and hospital wards. Study results indicated that hospitalized patients with cardiac arrest and use of AED were not associated with improved survival.

Background: The quality and effectiveness of resuscitation processes may be influenced by the patient's body mass index (BMI); however, the relationship between BMI and survival after in-hospital cardiac arrest has not been previously studied.Methods and Results: We evaluated 21 237 adult patients with an in-hospital cardiac arrest within the National Registry for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (NRCPR). We examined the association between BMI (classified as underweight [<18.5 kg/m(2)], normal [18.5 to 24.9 kg/m(2)], overweight [25.0 to 29.9 kg/m(2)], obese [30.0 to 34.9 kg/m(2)], and very obese [≥35.0 kg/m(2)]) and survival to hospital discharge using multivariable logistic regression, after stratifying arrests by rhythm type and adjusting for patient characteristics. Of 4499 patients with ventricular fibrillation or pulseless ventricular tachycardia as initial rhythm, 1825 (40.6%) survived to discharge. After multivariable adjustment, compared with overweight patients, underweight (odds ratio [OR], 0.59; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.41 to 0.84; P=0.003), normal weight (OR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.63 to 0.89; P<0.001), and very obese (OR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.63 to 0.96; P=0.02) had lower rates of survival, whereas obese patients had similar rates of survival (OR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.72 to 1.06; P=0.17). In contrast, of 16 738 patients with arrests caused by asystole or pulseless electric activity, only 2501 (14.9%) survived. After multivariable adjustment, all BMI groups had similar rates of survival except underweight patients (OR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.54 to 0.82; P<0.001).Conclusions: For cardiac arrest caused by shockable rhythms, underweight, normal weight, and very obese patients had lower rates of survival to discharge. In contrast, for cardiac arrest caused by nonshockable rhythms, survival to discharge was similar across BMI groups except for underweight patients. Future studies are needed to clarify the extent to which BMI affects the quality and effectiveness of resuscitation measures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the study which examines the risk for cardiac arrest for hospitalized patients with heart failure (HF) in the U.S. It notes that the study was conducted to predict the survival rate of patients with HF without neurological deficit to prepare for the establishment of resuscitative preferences. Meanwhile, it mentions that prognostication of patients variables would help to assist the risk of stratification of HF mortality.

The article focuses on a study which estimated the racial differences in survival for patients with in-hospital cardiac arrests. The study also examined the link between sociodemographic and clinical factors, and admitting hospital. It included 10,011 patients diagnosed with cardiac arrests due to ventricular fibrillation or pulseless ventricular tachycardia. Such patients were from 274 hospitals within the National Registry of Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation. Study authors found that rates of survival to discharge are lower in black patients compared to white patients. They concluded that the racial difference in survival rates was associated with hospital center.

The article focuses on a study which focuses on the understanding of the hospital-level variation in rates of delayed defibrillation at acute-care hospitals in the U.S. It reveals that the adjusted rate of delayed defibrillation ranges from 2.4%-50.9% among hospitals. However, rates of delayed defibrillation through traditional hospital factors are largely unexplained. The result of the study reveals that the rates of delayed defibrillation varies among hospitals differently.

Background: Survival outcomes following in-hospital cardiac arrest vary significantly across hospitals. Research suggests clinician education and training may play a role. We sought to identify best practices related to the education and training of resuscitation teams.Methods: We conducted a descriptive qualitative analysis of semistructured interview data obtained from in-depth site visits conducted from 2016 to 2017 at 9 diverse hospitals within the American Heart Association "Get With The Guidelines" registry, selected based on in-hospital cardiac arrest survival performance (5 top-, 1 middle-, 3 low-performing). We assessed coded data related to education and training including systems learning, informal feedback and debrief, and formal learning through advanced cardiopulmonary life support and mock codes. Thematic analysis was used to identify best practices.Results: In total, 129 interviews were conducted with a variety of hospital staff including nurses, chaplains, security guards, respiratory therapists, physicians, pharmacists, and administrators, yielding 78 hours and 29 minutes of interview time. Four themes related to training and education were identified: engagement, clear communication, consistency, and responsive leadership. Top-performing hospitals encouraged employee engagement with creative marketing of new programs and prioritizing hands-on learning over passive didactics. Clear communication was accomplished with debriefing, structured institutional review, and continual, frequent education for departments. Consistency was a cornerstone to culture change and was achieved with uniform policies for simulation practice as well as reinforced, routine practice (weekly, monthly, quarterly). Finally, top-performing hospitals had responsive leadership teams across multiple disciplines (nursing, respiratory therapy, pharmacy and medicine), who listened and adapted programs to fit the needs of their staff.Conclusions: Among top-performing hospitals excelling in in-hospital cardiac arrest survival, we identified core elements for education and training of resuscitation teams. Developing tools to expand these areas for hospitals may improve in-hospital cardiac arrest outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents a prospective cohort study which determined the rates of mortality and hospital codes before and after the introduction of long-term rapid response teams in hospitals. The authors explain that rapid response teams have been shown to decrease cardiopulmonary arrest code rates. Adult inpatients admitted between January 1, 2004 and August 31, 2007 were used for the study. 24,193 patient admissions were evaluated prior to the implementation of a rapid response team. 24,978 were evaluated after the intervention. Researchers found that implementation of the rapid response team was not associated with reductions in mortality or hospital-wide code rates.

Paul S. Chan, Graham Nichol and Brahmajee K. Nallamothu respond to a letter to the editor about their article "Time to Defibrillation After In-Hospital Cardiac Arrest" in the January 3, 2008 issue.

Background: Expert guidelines advocate defibrillation within 2 minutes after an in-hospital cardiac arrest caused by ventricular arrhythmia. However, empirical data on the prevalence of delayed defibrillation in the United States and its effect on survival are limited. Methods: We identified 6789 patients who had cardiac arrest due to ventricular fibrillation or pulseless ventricular tachycardia at 369 hospitals participating in the National Registry of Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation. Using multivariable logistic regression, we identified characteristics associated with delayed defibrillation. We then examined the association between delayed defibrillation (more than 2 minutes) and survival to discharge after adjusting for differences in patient and hospital characteristics. Results: The overall median time to defibrillation was 1 minute (interquartile range, <1 to 3 minutes); delayed defibrillation occurred in 2045 patients (30.1%). Characteristics associated with delayed defibrillation included black race, noncardiac admitting diagnosis, and occurrence of cardiac arrest at a hospital with fewer than 250 beds, in an unmonitored hospital unit, and during after-hours periods (5 p.m. to 8 a.m. or weekends). Delayed defibrillation was associated with a significantly lower probability of surviving to hospital discharge (22.2%, vs. 39.3% when defibrillation was not delayed; adjusted odds ratio, 0.48; 95% confidence interval, 0.42 to 0.54; P<0.001). In addition, a graded association was seen between increasing time to defibrillation and lower rates of survival to hospital discharge for each minute of delay (P for trend <0.001). Conclusions: Delayed defibrillation is common and is associated with lower rates of survival after in-hospital cardiac arrest. N Engl J Med 2008;358:9-17. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Identifying actionable resuscitation practices that vary across hospitals could improve adherence to process measures or outcomes after in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA). We sought to examine whether hospital debriefing frequency after IHCA varies across hospitals and whether hospitals which routinely perform debriefing have higher rates of process-of-care compliance or survival. Methods We conducted a nationwide survey of hospital resuscitation practices in April of 2018, which were then linked to data from the Get With The Guidelines-Resuscitation national registry for IHCA. Hospitals were categorized according to their reported frequency of debriefing immediately after IHCA; rarely (0%-20% of all IHCA cases), occasionally (21%-80%), and frequently (81%-100%). Hospital-level rates of timely defibrillation (≤2 minutes), epinephrine administration (≤5 minutes), survival to discharge, return of spontaneous circulation, and neurologically intact survival were comparted for patients with IHCA from 2015 to 2017. Results Overall, there were 193 hospitals comprising 44 477 IHCA events. Mean patient age was 65±16, 41% were females, and 68% were of White race. Across hospitals, 84 (43.5%) rarely performed debriefings immediately after an IHCA, 82 (42.5%) performed debriefing sessions occasionally, and 27 (14.0%) performed debriefing frequently. There was no association between higher reported debriefing frequency and hospital rates of timely defibrillation and epinephrine administration. Mean hospital rates of risk-standardized survival to discharge were similar across debriefing frequency groups (rarely 25.6%; occasionally 26.0%; frequently 25.2%, P=0.72), as were hospital rates of risk-adjusted return of spontaneous circulation (rarely 72.2%; occasionally 73.0%; frequently 70.0%, P=0.06) and neurologically intact survival (rarely 21.9%, occasionally 22.2%, frequently 21.1%, P=0.75). Conclusions In a large contemporary nationwide quality improvement registry, hospitals varied widely in how often they conducted debriefings immediately after IHCA. However, hospital debriefing frequency was not associated with better adherence to timely delivery of epinephrine or defibrillation or higher rates of IHCA survival. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: A hospital's risk-standardized survival rate (RSSR) for in-hospital cardiac arrest has emerged as an important metric to benchmark and incentivize hospital resuscitation quality. We examined whether hospital performance on the RSSR metric was stable or dynamic year-over-year and whether low-performing hospitals were able to improve survival outcomes over time.Methods and Results: We used data from 84 089 adult patients with an in-hospital cardiac arrest from 166 hospitals with continuous participation in Get With The Guidelines-Resuscitation from 2012 to 2017. A 2-level hierarchical regression model was used to compute RSSRs during a baseline (2012-2013) and two follow-up periods (2014-2015 and 2016-2017). At baseline, hospitals were classified as top-, middle-, and bottom-performing if they ranked in the top 25%, middle 50%, and bottom 25%, respectively, on their RSSR metric during 2012 to 2013. We compared hospital performance on RSSR during follow-up between top, middle, and bottom-performing hospitals' at baseline. During 2012 to 2013, 42 hospitals were identified as top-performing (median RSSR, 31.7%), 82 as middle-performing (median RSSR, 24.6%), and 42 as bottom-performing (median RSSR, 18.7%). During both follow-up periods, >70% of top-performing hospitals ranked in the top 50%, a substantial proportion remained in the top 25% of RSSR during 2014 to 2015 (54.6%) and 2016 to 2017 (40.4%) follow-up periods. Likewise, nearly 75% of bottom-performing hospitals remained in the bottom 50% during both follow-up periods, with 50.0% in the bottom 25% of RSSR during 2014 to 2015 and 40.5% in the bottom 25% during 2016 to 2017. While percentile rankings were generally consistent over time at ≈45% of study hospitals, ≈1 in 5 (21.4%) bottom-performing hospitals showed large improvement in percentile rankings over time and a similar proportion (23.7%) of top-performing hospitals showed large decline in percentile rankings compared with baseline.Conclusions: Hospital performance on RSSR during baseline period was generally consistent over 4 years of follow-up. However, 1 in 5 bottom-performing hospitals had large improvement in survival over time. Identifying care and quality improvement innovations at these sites may provide opportunities to improve in-hospital cardiac arrest care at other hospitals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak is placing a considerable strain on U.S. healthcare systems by requiring both significant acute resources and endangering healthcare team members through airborne infection. Many U.S. healthcare systems are now considering how to treat COVID-19 patients who suffer cardiac arrest based on a presumption of poor survival after resuscitation in COVID-19 patients. However, empiric data on cardiac arrest survival in COVID-19 from the United States are not available at the moment. To inform this debate, we report survival data following cardiopulmonary resuscitation in a cohort of critically ill patients with pneumonia or sepsis who were receiving mechanical ventilation in an intensive care unit (ICU) at the time of arrest. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A response from the authors of the article "Regional Variation in Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest Survival in the United States" which appeared in the previous issue is presented.

Every 10 years, the American Heart Association (AHA) Emergency Cardiovascular Care Committee establishes goals to improve survival from cardiac arrest. These goals align with broader AHA Impact Goals and support the AHA's advocacy efforts and strategic investments in research, education, clinical care, and quality improvement programs. This scientific statement focuses on 2030 AHA emergency cardiovascular care priorities, with a specific focus on bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation, early defibrillation, and neurologically intact survival. This scientific statement also includes aspirational goals, such as establishing cardiac arrest as a reportable disease and mandating reporting of standardized outcomes from different sources; advancing recognition of and knowledge about cardiac arrest; improving dispatch system response, availability, and access to resuscitation training in multiple settings and at multiple time points; improving availability, access, and affordability of defibrillators; providing a focus on early defibrillation, in-hospital programs, and establishing champions for debriefing and review of cardiac arrest events; and expanding measures to track outcomes beyond survival. The ability to track and report data from these broader aspirational targets will potentially require expansion of existing data sets, development of new data sets, and enhanced integration of technology to collect process and outcome data, as well as partnerships of the AHA with national, state, and local organizations. The COVID-19 (coronavirus disease 2019) pandemic, disparities in COVID-19 outcomes for historically excluded racial and ethnic groups, and the longstanding disparities in cardiac arrest treatment and outcomes for Black and Hispanic or Latino populations also contributed to an explicit focus and target on equity for the AHA Emergency Cardiovascular Care 2030 Impact Goals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Although previous studies have shown marked variation in out-ofhospital cardiac arrest survival across U.S. regions, factors underlying this variation in survival remain unknown. Methods & Results: Using 2005-2013 data from the Cardiac Arrest Registry to Enhance Survival (CARES), we identified 88,305 adult patients (age >18 years) in 107 U.S. counties with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest at home or in a public location, and geo-coded them to a U.S. county using the address where cardiac arrest occurred We constructed a two-level hierarchical regression model (patient & county) and used median odds ratios (MOR) to quantify regional variation in outof- hospital cardiac arrest survival. Moreover, we examined the proportion of variation in survival that was explained by 1) patient demographics 2) cardiac arrest characteristics 3) county-level rates of bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and hypothermia treatment and 4) county-level socio-demographic factors. The mean rate of survival to discharge was 10.0%, and varied markedly across counties (range: 1.4%-18.4%, MOR: 1.33; 95% CI: 1.24-1.38, Figure 1). Compared to counties in the lowest quartile of survival, patients in the highest quartile counties were younger (62.5 vs 61.6 years), more likely to be men (60.8% vs 64.4%), have a shockable rhythm (21.1% vs 26.9%), witnessed arrest (50.3% vs 53.0%), receive bystander CPR (23.4% vs 32.6%), and hypothermia (44.4% vs 62.3%, P for trend < 0.01 for all). County-level rates of survival were positively correlated with rates of bystander CPR (ρ = 0.45, P < 0.0001) and hypothermia treatment (ρ = 0.24, P < 0.0001). Sequential adjustment of demographic and cardiac arrest characteristics explained only 4.3% and 12.4% of the county-level variation in survival, respectively. Inclusion of county-level rates of bystander CPR and hypothermia explained a total of 28.5% of the survival variation, and this proportion increased to 36% after adjustment of other county-level factors. Conclusion: There is substantial variation in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest survival across U.S. counties. Although a large proportion of survival variation was unexplained, most of the variation that could be accounted for was due to countylevel differences in rates of bystander CPR and hypothermia treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The Good Outcome Following Attempted Resuscitation (GO-FAR) Score uses pre-arrest factors to predict survival after In-Hospital Cardiac Arrest (IHCA) with minimal neurological dysfunction, (cerebral performance category (CPC) ≤1). Moderate neurological dysfunction (CPC ≤2) may be a more acceptable outcome.Objective: To predict survival after IHCA with mild or moderate neurological dysfunction based on pre-arrest factors.Methods: 52,468 patients with IHCA from 2012-2017. Data was divided into training (44%), testing (22%), and validation (34%) sets. Univariate analysis was used to identify variables with >3% difference in survival with CPC ≤2. These variables carried forward to the multivariate logistic regression model. The most parsimonious model that best classified patients as having a very poor (≤5%), below average (≤10%), average (11%-30%), or above average (>30%) likelihood of survival with CPC ≤2 was chosen.Results: Age >85, admission CPC <2, and non-surgical admission were strongly association with poor survival (-12.1%, -14.4%, and -18%, respectively). Nine variables were included in the logistic regression analysis. The final updated model, GO FAR 2, categorized 6.2% of patients with a very poor predicted survival, 24.8% of patients with a below average predicted survival, and 11.3% with above average predicted survival. The observed survival among those with very poor predicted survival was 4.5%.Conclusion: The GO FAR 2 score provides clinicians with a prognostic estimate of the likelihood of a good outcome after IHCA based on pre-arrest patient factors. Future research is required to validate the GO-FAR 2 score. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The authors explore the three important gaps in knowledge that need to be addressed in order to improve the overall survival following an in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA). First is the need to determine whether discharge survival rate is the best outcome for measurement. Second is the understanding of organizational culture and best practices that distinguish hospitals with superior survival rates. Last is the examination of long-term outcomes after an IHCA.

The article describes the case of physicians reviewing preventable errors during cardiac arrests. The study reviews four medical subspecialties namely hospital medicine, emergency, critical care and cardiovascular medicine. Errors identified in the study were communication, misdiagnosis, delayed recognition of symptoms, inappropriate treatment, inadequate inpatient record, delayed defibrillation, and inadequate chest compressions. The study accounts errors in the stressful nature of emergencies.

A response by Paul S. Chan and colleagues to a letter to the editor about their article "Racial Differences in Survival After In-Hospital Cardiac Arrest," published in a 2009 issue, is presented.

A letter to the editor is presented in response to the article "The utility of therapeutic hypothermia for post-cardiac arrest syndrome patients with an initial nonshockable rhythm" by SM Perman, AV Grossestreuer, and colleagues in the previous issue.

A letter to the editor is presented in response to the article "Hospital variation in time to defibrillation after in-hospital cardiac arrest," by Chan and colleagues in the 2009 issue.

In most patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA), cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is initiated by first responders (non-transporting firefighters or police) or emergency medical service (EMS) personnel. Whether survival outcomes differ when CPR is initiated by first responders vs. EMS is unclear. Within the CARES registry, we identified 162,896 adult patients with a non-traumatic OHCA in whom CPR was initiated by first responders or EMS during 2013–2021. Using multivariable hierarchical logistic regression to adjust for demographics, cardiac arrest characteristics and time to first CPR, we compared rates of survival to hospital admission and to discharge in patients with CPR initiated by first responders and EMS. CPR was initiated by first responders in 70,889 (43.5%) and by EMS in 92,007 (56.5%) patients. Time to first CPR was shorter when first responders initiated CPR (median: 8.0 [5.0–13.0] vs. 10.0 minutes [IQR: 6.0–14.0]; standardized difference 16.1%). The likelihood of survival to hospital admission was similar when CPR was initiated by first responders (27.1% [first responders] vs. 26.8% [EMS]; adjusted OR: 0.98 [0.96, 1.01], P = 0.15) whereas survival rates to discharge were higher with CPR initiated by first responders (9.4% [first responders] vs. 7.7% [EMS]; adjusted OR: 1.17 [1.02, 1.21], P < 0.001). After adjustment for time to first CPR, rates of survival to discharge were similar between the first responder and EMS groups (adjusted OR: 1.04 [1.00–1.08]; P = 0.07). CPR initiated by first responders for OHCA is associated with higher overall survival rates and higher survival was largely mediated by earlier response times. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose Little is known regarding patterns of resuscitation care in patients with advanced cancer who suffer in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA). Methods In the Get With The Guidelines - Resuscitation registry, 47,157 adults with IHCA with and without advanced cancer (defined as the presence of metastatic or hematologic malignancy) were identified at 369 hospitals from April 2006 through June 2010. We compared rates of return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) and survival to discharge between groups using multivariable models. We also compared duration of resuscitation effort and resuscitation quality measures. Results Overall, 6,585 patients with IHCA (14.0%) had advanced cancer. Patients with advanced cancer had lower multivariable-adjusted rates of ROSC (52.3% [95% CI, 49.5% to 55.3%] v 56.6% [95% CI, 53.8% to 59.5%]; P,.001) and survival to discharge (7.4% [95% CI, 6.6% to 8.4%] v 13.4% [95% CI, 12.1% to 14.8%]; P , .001). Among nonsurvivors who died during resuscitation, patients with advanced cancer had better performance on most resuscitation quality measures.Amongpatients withROSC,patients with advanced cancer were made Do Not Attempt Resuscitation (DNAR) more frequently within 48 hours (adjusted relative risk, 1.30 [95% CI, 1.24 to 1.37]; P,.001). Adjustment for DNAR status explained some of the immediate effect of advanced cancer on survival; however, survival remained significantly lower in patients with cancer. Conclusion Patients with advanced cancer can expect lower survival rates after IHCA compared with those without advanced cancer, and they are more frequentlymadeDNARwithin48hours of ROSC. These findings have important implications for discussions of resuscitation care wishes with patients and can better inform end-of-life discussions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The duration of resuscitation efforts has implications for patient survival of in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA). It is unknown if patients with better predicted survival of IHCA receive longer attempts at resuscitation.Methods: In a multicenter observational cohort of 40,563 adult non-survivors of resuscitation efforts for IHCA between 2000 and 2012, we determined the pre-arrest predicted probability of survival to discharge with good neurologic status, categorized into very low (<1%), low (1-3%), average (>3%-15%), and above average (>15%). We then determined the association between predicted arrest survival probability and the duration of resuscitation efforts.Results: The median duration of resuscitation efforts among all non-survivors was 19min (interquartile range 13-28min). Overall, the median duration of resuscitation efforts was longer in non-survivors with a higher predicted probability of survival with good neurologic status (median of 16, 17, 20, and 23min among the groups predicted to have very low, low, average, and above probabilities, respectively; P<0.001). However, the duration of resuscitation was often discordant with predicted survival, including longer than median duration of resuscitation efforts in 40.4% of patients with very low predicted survival and shorter than median duration of resuscitation efforts in 31.9% of patients with above average predicted survival.Conclusions: The duration of resuscitation efforts in patients with IHCA was generally consistent with their predicted survival. However, nearly a third of patients with above average predicted outcomes received shorter than average (less than 19min) duration of resuscitation efforts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]