Search

Importance: Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) duration is associated with cardiac arrest survival., Objectives: To describe characteristics associated with CPR duration among hospitalized children without return of circulation (ROC) (patient-level analysis) and determine whether hospital median CPR duration in patients without ROC is associated with survival (hospital-level analysis)., Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study of patients undergoing pediatric in-hospital CPR between January 1, 2000, and December 31, 2021, used data from the Get With the Guidelines-Resuscitation registry. Children receiving chest compressions for at least 2 minutes and/or defibrillation were included in the patient-level analysis. For the hospital-level analysis, sites with at least 20 total events and at least 5 events without ROC were included. Data were analyzed from December 1, 2022, to November 15, 2023., Exposures: For the patient-level analysis, the exposure was CPR duration in patients without ROC. For the hospital-level analysis, the exposure was quartile of median CPR duration in events without ROC at each hospital., Main Outcomes and Measures: For the patient-level analysis, outcomes were patient and event factors, including race and ethnicity and event location; we used a multivariable hierarchical linear regression model to assess factors associated with CPR duration in patients without ROC. For the hospital-level analysis, the main outcome was survival to discharge among all site events; we used a random intercept multivariable hierarchical logistic regression model to examine the association between hospital quartile of CPR duration and survival to discharge., Results: Of 13 899 events, 3859 patients did not have ROC (median age, 7 months [IQR, 0 months to 7 years]; 2175 boys [56%]). Among event nonsurvivors, median CPR duration was longer in those with initial rhythms of bradycardia with poor perfusion (8.37 [95% CI, 5.70-11.03] minutes; P < .001), pulseless electrical activity (8.22 [95% CI, 5.44-11.00] minutes; P < .001), and pulseless ventricular tachycardia (6.17 [95% CI, 0.09-12.26] minutes; P = .047) (vs asystole). Shorter median CPR duration was associated with neonates compared with older children (-4.86 [95% CI, -8.88 to -0.84] minutes; P = .02), emergency department compared with pediatric intensive car7 e unit location (-4.02 [95% CI, -7.48 to -0.57] minutes; P = .02), and members of racial or ethnic minority groups compared with White patients (-3.67 [95% CI, -6.18 to -1.17]; P = .004). Among all CPR events, the adjusted odds of survival to discharge differed based on hospital quartile of median CPR duration among events without ROC; compared with quartile 1 (15.0-25.9 minutes), the adjusted odds ratio for quartile 2 (26.0-29.4 minutes) was 1.22 (95% CI, 1.09-1.36; P < .001); for quartile 3 (29.5-32.9 minutes), 1.23 (95% CI, 1.08-1.39; P = .002); and for quartile 4 (33.0-53.0 minutes), 1.04 (95% CI, 0.91-1.19; P = .58)., Conclusions and Relevance: In this retrospective cohort study of pediatric in-hospital CPR, several factors, including age and event location, were associated with CPR duration in event nonsurvivors. The odds of survival to discharge were lower for patients at hospitals with the shortest and longest median CPR durations among events without ROC. Further studies are needed to determine the optimal duration of CPR during pediatric in-hospital cardiac arrest and to provide training guidelines for resuscitation teams to eliminate disparities in resuscitation care.

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., Competing Interests: Dr. Stewart received funding from the American Heart Association (AHA). Dr. Chan received funding from the National Heart Lung and Blood Institute and the AHA. Drs. Chan and Girotra received support for article research from the National Institutes of Health (R01HL160734) and the AHA. Ms. Swanson is additionally supported by a grant from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (F30HD100074). Dr. Girotra has received funding from the National Institutes of Health (R56HL158803 and R01HL160734) and the AHA for editorial work. The remaining authors have disclosed that they do not have any potential conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 by the Society of Critical Care Medicine and Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All Rights Reserved.)

Background: Cardiac arrest is 1 of the leading causes of morbidity and mortality, with an estimated 340 000 out-of-hospital and 292 000 in-hospital cardiac arrest events per year in the United States. Survival rates are lower in certain racial and socioeconomic groups., Methods and Results: We performed a county-level cross-sectional longitudinal study using the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Wide-Ranging Online Data for Epidemiologic Research multiple causes of death data set between 2016 and 2020 among individuals of all ages whose death was attributed to cardiac arrest. The Social Vulnerability Index is a composite measure that includes socioeconomic vulnerability, household composition, disability, individuals from racial and ethnic minority groups status and language, and housing and transportation domains. We examined the impact of social determinants on cardiac arrest mortality stratified by age, race, ethnicity, and sex in the United States. All age-adjusted mortality rate (cardiac arrest AAMRs) are reported as per 100 000. Overall cardiac arrest AAMR during the study period was 95.6. The cardiac arrest AAMR was higher for men compared with women (119.6 versus 89.9) and for the Black population compared with the White population (150.4 versus 92.3). The cardiac arrest AAMR increased from 64.8 in counties in quintile 1 of Social Vulnerability Index to 141 in quintile 5, with an average increase of 13% (95% CI, 9.8%-16.9%) in AAMR per quintile increase., Conclusions: Mortality from cardiac arrest varies widely, with a >2-fold difference between the counties with the highest and lowest social vulnerability, highlighting the differential burden of cardiac arrest deaths throughout the United States based on social determinants of health.

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.

Competing Interests: Disclosures Dr Chan has received research funding from the American Heart Association (AHA) and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI). Dr Djärv is the chair of Swedish Resuscitation Council and the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation (ILCOR) First Aid Task Force. A. Doll is employed by the Resuscitation Academy. Dr Edelson has equity interest and employment in AgileMD. Dr Girotra receives funding from the National Institutes of Health (R01HL160734, R56HL158803, and R01HL166305). He also receives a stipend from AHA for editorial work. Dr Greif is chair of ILCOR Education, Implementation and Team Task Force and the European Resuscitation Council board birector of guidelines. Dr Lauridsen serves as an ERC Science and Education Committee member and member of the ILCOR EIT Task Force. Dr Moskowitz receives funding from NHLBI (R33HL162980). M.C. Myburgh serves on the ILCOR Pediatric Task Force. Dr Neumar is the ILCOR cochair. J.P. Nolan is the editor in chief of Resuscitation and receives National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) grant funding. Dr Olasveengen is a board member of the Laerdal Foundation. Dr Perkins receives grant funding from the NIHR Applied Research Collaboration West Midlands, Resuscitation Council United Kingdom, Laerdal Foundation, and the British Heart Foundation and serves on the boards for the European Resuscitation Council, Resuscitation Council UK, ILCOR, and University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire. He also serves as an editor for Resuscitation and Resuscitation Plus. J.K. Previdi serves as the AHA Emergency Cardiovascular Care Committee chair and is an AHA product consultant. Dr Vaillancourt is a member of the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada Resuscitation Advisory Committee and receives funding from The Ottawa Hospital Academic Medical Organization. Dr Montgomery serves as the ILCOR consultant. Dr Sasson is employed by AHA. Dr Nallamothu has been a principal investigator or coinvestigator on research grants from the NIH, AHA, Janssen, and Apple, Inc. He also receives compensation as an editor in chief of Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes. Finally, he is a coinventor on the US Utility Patent Number US15/356012 (US20170148158A1) entitled “Automated Analysis of Vasculature in Coronary Angiograms” that uses software technology with signal processing and machine learning to automate the reading of coronary angiograms, held by the University of Michigan. The patent is licensed to AngioInsight, Inc, in which he holds ownership shares and receives consultancy fees. Dr Nadkarni receives research funding to his institution from the National Institutes of Health, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, US Department of Defense, American Heart Association, Zoll Medical, RQI Partners, and Laerdal Foundation; he also serves as the President of the Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) 2023-2024. The views expressed in the manuscript are his, and not intended to represent the views of the SCCM. The other authors report no conflicts.

Background: 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., Methods: 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., Results: 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., Conclusion: 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., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: 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., Objectives: The aim of this study was to identify the factors associated with higher survival rates after an index cardiac arrest in the CCL., Methods: 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., Results: 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., Conclusions: 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., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Dr Chan is supported by a grant from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (R01HL160734); and has received consultancy funding from Optum Rx and the American Heart Association. Dr Hirsch is supported by National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute research funding (grant 5U54HL120163-10). Dr Drachman has received consulting honoraria from Boston Scientific, Broadview Ventures, Cardiovascular Systems, and Cordis. Dr Hirsch has received consultant funding from Riva Health. Dr Elmariah has received institutional research support from Siemens and Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals; and has received consulting fees from Medtronic and Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Bhatt is an advisory board member for Boehringer Ingelheim, Cardax, CellProthera, Cereno Scientific, Elsevier Practice Update Cardiology, Janssen, Level Ex, Medscape Cardiology, MyoKardia, NirvaMed, Novo Nordisk, PhaseBio, PLx Pharma, Regado Biosciences, and Stasys; is on the boards of directors of AngioWave (stock options), Boston VA Research Institute, Bristol Myers Squibb (stock), DRS.LINQ (stock options), High Enroll (stock), Society of Cardiovascular Patient Care, and TobeSoft; is inaugural chair of the American Heart Association Quality Oversight Committee; is a member of data monitoring committees for the Baim Institute for Clinical Research (formerly Harvard Clinical Research Institute, for the PORTICO trial, funded by St. Jude Medical, now Abbott), Boston Scientific (chair, PEITHO trial), the Cleveland Clinic (including for the ExCEED trial, funded by Edwards), Contego Medical (chair, PERFORMANCE 2), the Duke Clinical Research Institute, the Mayo Clinic, Mount Sinai School of Medicine (for the ENVISAGE trial, funded by Daiichi Sankyo), Novartis, and the Population Health Research Institute; has received honoraria from the American College of Cardiology (senior associate editor, Clinical Trials and News and ACC.org; chair, American College of Cardiology Accreditation Oversight Committee), the law firm of Arnold & Porter (for work related to Sanofi/Bristol Myers Squibb clopidogrel litigation), the Baim Institute for Clinical Research (formerly Harvard Clinical Research Institute; RE-DUAL PCI clinical trial steering committee, funded by Boehringer Ingelheim; AEGIS-II executive committee, funded by CSL Behring), Belvoir Publications (editor-in-chief, Harvard Heart Letter), the Canadian Medical and Surgical Knowledge Translation Research Group (clinical trial steering committees), the Duke Clinical Research Institute (clinical trial steering committees, including for the PRONOUNCE trial, funded by Ferring Pharmaceuticals), HMP Global (editor-in-chief, Journal of Invasive Cardiology), the Journal of the American College of Cardiology (guest editor and associate editor), K2P (co-chair, interdisciplinary curriculum), Level Ex, Medtelligence/ReachMD (continuing medical education steering committees), MJH Life Sciences, Piper Sandler, the Population Health Research Institute (for the COMPASS operations committee, publications committee, steering committee, and U.S. national coleader, funded by Bayer), Slack Publications (chief medical editor, Cardiology Today’s Intervention), the Society of Cardiovascular Patient Care (secretary/treasurer), WebMD (continuing medical education steering committees); is deputy editor of Clinical Cardiology; is chair of the NCDR-ACTION Registry Steering Committee and the VA CART Research and Publications Committee; has received research funding from Abbott, Afimmune, Amarin, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cardax, CellProthera, Cereno Scientific, Chiesi, CSL Behring, Eisai, Ethicon, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Forest Laboratories, Fractyl, Garmin, HLS Therapeutics, Idorsia, Ironwood, Ischemix, Janssen, Lexicon, Lilly, Medtronic, MyoKardia, NirvaMed, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Owkin, Pfizer, PhaseBio, PLx Pharma, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi, Stasys, Synaptic, The Medicines Company, 89Bio; has received royalties from Elsevier (editor, Cardiovascular Intervention: A Companion to Braunwald’s Heart Disease); is a site coinvestigator for Abbott, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, Cardiovascular Systems Inc, St. Jude Medical (now Abbott), Philips, and Svelte; is a trustee of the American College of Cardiology; and has conducted unfunded research for FlowCo, Merck, and Takeda. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

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.

Background: Early studies found low survival rates for adults with COVID-19 infection and in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA). We evaluated the association of COVID-19 infection on survival outcomes in pediatric patients undergoing cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR)., Methods: Within Get-With-The-Guidelines®-Resuscitation, we identified pediatric patients who underwent CPR for an IHCA or bradycardia with poor perfusion between March and December, 2020. We compared survival outcomes (survival to discharge and return of spontaneous circulation for ≥20 minutes [ROSC]) between patients with suspected/confirmed COVID-19 infection and non-COVID-19 patients using multivariable hierarchical regression, with hospital site as a random effect and patient and cardiac arrest variables with a significant (p < 0.05) bivariate association as fixed effects., Results: Overall, 1328 pediatric in-hospital CPR events were identified (590 IHCA, 738 bradycardia with poor perfusion), of which 46 (32 IHCA, 14 bradycardia) had suspected/confirmed COVID-19 infection. Rates of survival to discharge were similar between those with and without COVID-19 infection (39.1% vs. 44.9%; adjusted RR, 1.14 [95% CI: 0.55-2.36]), and these estimates were similar for those with IHCA and bradycardia with poor perfusion (adjusted RRs of 1.03 and 1.05; interaction p = 0.96). Rates of ROSC were also similar between pediatric patients with and without COVID-19 overall (67.4% vs. 76.9%; adjusted RR, 0.87 [0.43, 1.77]), and for the subgroups with IHCA or bradycardia requiring CPR (adjusted RRs of 0.95 and 0.86, interaction p = 0.26)., Conclusions: In a large multicenter national registry of CPR events, COVID-19 infection was not associated with lower rates of ROSC or survival to hospital discharge in pediatric patients undergoing CPR., (Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

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., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Importance: Although survival for in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA) has improved substantially over the last 2 decades, survival rates have plateaued in recent years. A better understanding of hospital differences in IHCA incidence may provide important insights regarding best practices for prevention of IHCA., Objective: To determine the incidence of IHCA among Medicare beneficiaries, and evaluate hospital variation in incidence of IHCA., Design, Setting, and Participants: This observational cohort study analyzes 2014 to 2017 data from 170 hospitals participating in the Get With The Guidelines-Resuscitation registry, linked to Medicare files. Participants were adults aged 65 years and older. Statistical analysis was performed from January to December 2021., Exposures: Case-mix index, teaching status, and nurse-staffing., Main Outcomes and Measures: Hospital incidence of IHCA among Medicare beneficiaries was estimated as the number of IHCA patients divided by the total number of hospital admissions. Multivariable hierarchical regression models were used to calculate hospital incidence rates adjusted for differences in patient case-mix and evaluate the association of hospital variables with IHCA incidence., Results: Among a total of 4.5 million admissions at 170 hospitals, 38 630 patients experienced an IHCA during 2014 to 2017. Among the 38 630 patients with IHCAs, 7571 (19.6%) were non-Hispanic Black, 26 715 (69.2%) were non-Hispanic White, and 16 732 (43.3%) were female; the mean (SD) age at admission was 76.3 (7.8) years. The median risk-adjusted IHCA incidence was 8.5 per 1000 admissions (95% CI, 8.2-9.0 per 1000 admissions). After adjusting for differences in case-mix index, IHCA incidence varied markedly across hospitals ranging from 2.4 per 1000 admissions to 25.5 per 1000 admissions (IQR, 6.6-11.4; median odds ratio, 1.51 [95% CI, 1.44-1.58]). Among hospital variables, a higher case-mix index, higher nurse staffing, and teaching status were associated with a lower hospital incidence of IHCA., Conclusions and Relevance: This cohort study found that the incidence of IHCA varies markedly across hospitals, and hospitals with higher nurse staffing and teaching status had lower IHCA incidence rates. Future studies are needed to better understand processes of care at hospitals with exceptionally low IHCA incidence to identify best practices for cardiac arrest prevention.

Background: Recent reports on challenges in resuscitation care at hospitals severely affected by the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic raise questions about how the pandemic affected outcomes for in-hospital cardiac arrest throughout the United States., Methods: Within Get With The Guidelines-Resuscitation, we conducted a retrospective cohort study to compare in-hospital cardiac arrest survival during the presurge (January 1-February 29), surge (March 1-May 15) and immediate postsurge (May 16-June 30) periods in 2020 compared to 2015 to 2019. Monthly COVID-19 mortality rates for each hospital's county were categorized, per 1 000 000 residents, as low (0-10), moderate (11-50), high (51-100), or very high (>100). Using hierarchical regression models, we compared rates of survival to discharge in 2020 versus 2015 to 2019 for each period., Results: Of 61 586 in-hospital cardiac arrests, 21 208 (4309 in 2020), 26 459 (5949 in 2020), and 13 919 (2686 in 2020) occurred in the presurge, surge, and postsurge periods, respectively. During the presurge period, 24.2% survived to discharge in 2020 versus 24.7% in 2015 to 2019 (adjusted odds ratio, 1.12 [95% CI, 1.02-1.22]). In contrast, during the surge period, 19.6% survived to discharge in 2020 versus 26.0% in 2015 to 2019 (adjusted odds ratio, 0.81 [0.75-0.88]). Lower survival was most pronounced in communities with high (28% lower survival) and very high (42% lower survival) monthly COVID-19 mortality rates (interaction P <0.001). Resuscitation times were shorter (median: 22 versus 25 minutes; P <0.001), and delayed epinephrine treatment was more prevalent (11.3% versus 9.9%; P =0.004) during the surge period. Survival was lower even when patients with confirmed/suspected COVID-19 infection were excluded from analyses. During the postsurge period, survival rates were similar in 2020 versus 2015 to 2019 (22.3% versus 25.8%; adjusted odds ratio, 0.93 [0.83-1.04]), including communities with high COVID-19 mortality (interaction P =0.16)., Conclusions: Early during the pandemic, rates of survival to discharge for IHCA decreased, even among patients without COVID-19 infection, highlighting the early impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on in-hospital resuscitation.

Background: Studies have reported lower survival for in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA) during the initial COVID-19 surge. Whether the pandemic reduced IHCA survival during subsequent surges and in areas with lower COVID-19 rates is unknown., Methods: Within Get-With-The-Guidelines®-Resuscitation, we identified 22,899 and 79,736 IHCAs during March to December in 2020 and 2015-2019, respectively. Using hierarchical regression, we compared risk-adjusted rates of survival to discharge in 2020 vs. 2015-19 during five COVID-19 periods: Surge 1 (March to mid-May), post-Surge 1 (mid-May to June), Surge 2 (July to mid-August), post-Surge 2 (mid-August to mid-October), and Surge 3 (mid-October to December). Monthly COVID-19 mortality rates for each hospital's county were categorized, per 1,000,000 residents, as very low (0-10), low (11-50), moderate (51-100), or high (>100)., Results: During each COVID-19 surge period in 2020, rates of survival to discharge for IHCA were lower, as compared with the same period in 2015-2019: Surge 1: adjusted OR: 0.81 (0.75-0.88); Surge 2: adjusted OR: 0.88 (0.79-0.97), Surge 3: adjusted OR: 0.79 (0.73-0.86). Lower survival was most pronounced at hospitals located in counties with moderate to high monthly COVID-19 mortality rates. In contrast, during the two post-surge periods, survival rates were similar in 2020 vs. 2015-2019: post-Surge 1: adjusted OR 0.93 (0.83-1.04) and post-Surge 2: adjusted OR 0.94 (0.86-1.03), even at hospitals with the highest county-level COVID-19 mortality rates., Conclusions: During the three COVID-19 surges in the U.S. during 2020, rates of survival to discharge for IHCA dropped substantially, especially in communities with moderate to high COVID-19 mortality rates., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

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.

Objective: To determine the use of epinephrine (adrenaline) before defibrillation for treatment of in-hospital cardiac arrest due to a ventricular arrhythmia and examine its association with patient survival., Design: Propensity matched analysis., Setting: 2000-18 data from 497 hospitals participating in the American Heart Association’s Get With The Guidelines-Resuscitation registry., Participants: Adults aged 18 and older with an index in-hospital cardiac arrest due to an initial shockable rhythm treated with defibrillation., Interventions: Administration of epinephrine before first defibrillation., Main Outcome Measures: Survival to discharge; favorable neurological survival, defined as survival to discharge with none, mild, or moderate neurological disability measured using cerebral performance category scores; and survival after acute resuscitation (that is, return of spontaneous circulation for &gt;20 minutes). A time dependent, propensity matched analysis was performed to adjust for confounding due to indication and evaluate the independent association of epinephrine before defibrillation with study outcomes., Results: Among 34 820 patients with an initial shockable rhythm, 7054 (20.3%) were treated with epinephrine before defibrillation, contrary to current guidelines. In comparison with participants treated with defibrillation first, participants receiving epinephrine first were less likely to have a history of myocardial infarction or heart failure, but more likely to have renal failure, sepsis, respiratory insufficiency, and receive mechanical ventilation before in-hospital cardiac arrest (standardized differences &gt;10% for all). Treatment with epinephrine before defibrillation was strongly associated with delayed defibrillation (median 4 minutes v 0 minutes). In propensity matched analysis (6569 matched pairs), epinephrine before defibrillation was associated with lower odds of survival to discharge (22.4% v 29.7%; adjusted odds ratio 0.69; 95% confidence interval 0.64 to 0.74; P&lt;0.001), favorable neurological survival (15.8% v 21.6%; 0.68; 0.61 to 0.76; P&lt;0.001) and survival after acute resuscitation (61.7% v 69.5%; 0.73; 0.67 to 0.79; P&lt;0.001). The above findings were consistent in a range of sensitivity analyses, including matching according to defibrillation time., Conclusions: Contrary to current guidelines that prioritize immediate defibrillation for in-hospital cardiac arrest due to a shockable rhythm, one in five patients are treated with epinephrine before defibrillation. Use of epinephrine before defibrillation was associated with worse survival outcomes., Competing Interests: Competing interests: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at www.icmje.org/disclosure-of-interest/ and declare: no support from any organization for the submitted work; no financial relationships with any organizations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous three years, or any other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work, with the following exceptions: PSC and SG have received funding from the American Heart Association. The American Heart Association produces the resuscitation guidelines and supports the Get With The Guidelines-Resuscitation registry which provided the data used in this study., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background Although many hospitals have resuscitation champions, it is unknown if hospitals with very active physician or nonphysician champions have higher survival rates for in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA). Methods and Results We surveyed adult hospitals in Get With The Guidelines-Resuscitation about resuscitation practices, including about their resuscitation champion. Hospitals were categorized as having a very active physician champion, a very active nonphysician champion, or other (no champion or not very active champion). For each hospital, we calculated risk-standardized survival rates for IHCA during the period of 2016 to 2018 and categorized them into quintiles of risk-standardized survival rates. The association between a hospital's resuscitation champion type and their quintile of survival was evaluated using multivariable hierarchical proportional odds logistic regression. Overall, 192 hospitals (total of 44 477 IHCAs) comprised the study cohort. Risk-standardized survival rates for IHCA varied widely between hospitals (median: 24.7%; range: 9.2%-37.5%). Very active physician champions were present in 29 (15.1%) hospitals, 64 (33.3%) had very active nonphysician champions, and 99 (51.6%) did not have a very active champion. Compared with sites without a very active resuscitation champion, hospitals with a very active physician champion were 4 times more likely to be in a higher survival quintile, even after adjusting for resuscitation practices across hospital groups (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 3.90; 95% CI, 1.39-10.95). In contrast, there was no difference in survival between sites without very active champions and those with very active non-physician champions (adjusted OR, 1.28; 95% CI, 0.62-2.65). Conclusions The background and engagement level of a resuscitation champion is a critical factor in a hospital's survival outcomes for IHCA.

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.

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.

Importance: Survival after in-hospital cardiac arrest depends on 2 distinct phases: responsiveness and quality of the hospital code team (ie, acute resuscitation phase) and intensive and specialty care expertise (ie, postresuscitation phase). Understanding the association of these 2 phases with overall survival has implications for design of in-hospital cardiac arrest quality measures., Objective: To determine whether hospital-level rates of acute resuscitation survival and postresuscitation survival are associated with overall risk-standardized survival to discharge for in-hospital cardiac arrest., Design, Settings, and Participants: This observational cohort study included 86 426 patients with in-hospital cardiac arrest from January 1, 2015, through December 31, 2018, recruited from 290 hospitals participating in the Get With The Guidelines-Resuscitation registry., Exposures: Risk-adjusted rates of acute resuscitation survival, defined as return of spontaneous circulation for at least 20 minutes, and postresuscitation survival, defined as survival to discharge among patients achieving return of spontaneous circulation., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was overall risk-standardized survival rate (RSSR) for in-hospital cardiac arrest calculated using a previously validated model. The correlation between a hospital's overall RSSR and risk-adjusted rates of acute resuscitation and postresuscitation survival were examined., Results: Of 86 426 patients with in-hospital cardiac arrest, the median age was 67.0 years (interquartile range [IQR], 56.0-76.0 years); 50 665 (58.6%) were men, and 71 811 (83.1%) had an initial nonshockable cardiac arrest rhythm. The median RSSR was 25.1% (IQR, 21.9%-27.7%). The median risk-adjusted acute resuscitation survival was 72.4% (IQR, 67.9%-76.9%), and risk-adjusted postresuscitation survival was 34.0% (IQR, 31.5%-37.7%). Although a hospital's RSSR was correlated with survival during both phases, the correlation with postresuscitation survival (ρ, 0.90; P < .001) was stronger compared with the correlation with acute resuscitation survival (ρ, 0.50; P < .001). Of note, there was no correlation between risk-adjusted acute resuscitation survival and postresuscitation survival (ρ, 0.09; P = .11). Compared with hospitals in the lowest RSSR quartile, hospitals in the highest RSSR quartile had higher rates of acute resuscitation survival (75.4% in quartile 4 vs 66.8% in quartile 1; P < .001) and postresuscitation survival (40.3% in quartile 4 vs 28.7% in quartile 1; P < .001), but the magnitude of difference was larger with postresuscitation survival., Conclusions and Relevance: The findings suggest that hospitals that excel in overall in-hospital cardiac arrest survival, in general, excel in either acute resuscitation or postresuscitation care but not both; efforts to strengthen postresuscitation care may offer additional opportunities to improve in-hospital cardiac arrest survival.

Background Sustained return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) is the most proximal and direct assessment of acute resuscitation quality in hospitals. However, validated tools to benchmark hospital rates for ROSC after in-hospital cardiac arrest currently do not exist. Methods and Results Within the national Get With The Guidelines-Resuscitation registry, we identified 83 206 patients admitted from 335 hospitals from 2014 to 2017 with in-hospital cardiac arrest. Using hierarchical logistic regression, we derived and validated a model for ROSC, defined as spontaneous and sustained ROSC for ≥20 consecutive minutes, from 24 pre-arrest variables and calculated rates of risk-standardized ROSC for in-hospital cardiac arrest for each hospital. Overall, rates of ROSC were 72.0% and 72.7% for the derivation and validation cohorts, respectively. The model in the derivation cohort had moderate discrimination (C-statistic 0.643) and excellent calibration ( R 2 of 0.996). Seventeen variables were associated with ROSC, and a parsimonious model retained 10 variables. Before risk-adjustment, the median hospital ROSC rate was 70.5% (interquartile range: 64.7-76.9%; range: 33.3-89.6%). After adjustment, the distribution of risk-standardized ROSC rates was narrower: median of 71.9% (interquartile range: 68.2-76.4%; range: 42.2-84.6%). Overall, 56 (16.7%) of 335 hospitals had at least a 10% absolute change in percentile rank after risk standardization: 27 (8.0%) with a ≥10% negative percentile change and 29 (8.7%) with a ≥10% positive percentile change. Conclusions We have derived and validated a model to risk-standardize hospital rates of ROSC for in-hospital cardiac arrest. Use of this model can support efforts to compare acute resuscitation survival across hospitals to facilitate quality improvement.

Background Women have higher utilization of "do not attempt resuscitation" (DNAR) orders during treatment for critical illness. Occurrence of sex differences in the establishment of DNAR orders after resuscitation from in-hospital cardiac arrest is unknown. Whether differences in DNAR use by sex lead to disparities in survival remains unclear. Methods and Results We identified 71 820 patients with return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) after in-hospital cardiac arrest from the Get With The Guidelines-Resuscitation registry. Multivariable models evaluated the association between de novo DNAR (anytime after ROSC, within 12 hours of ROSC, or within 72 hours of ROSC) by sex and the association between sex and survival to discharge accounting for DNAR. All models accounted for clustering of patients within hospital and adjusted for demographic and cardiac arrest characteristics. The cohort included 30 454 (42.4%) women, who were slightly more likely than male participants to establish DNAR orders anytime after ROSC (45.0% versus 43.5%; adjusted relative risk: 1.15 [95% CI, 1.10-1.20]; P <0.0001). Of those with DNAR orders, women were more likely to be DNAR status within the first 12 hours (51.8% versus 46.5%; adjusted relative risk: 1.40 [95% CI, 1.30-1.52]; P <0.0001) and within 72 hours after ROSC (75.9% versus 70.9%; adjusted relative risk: 1.35 [95% CI, 1.26-1.45]; P <0.0001). However, no difference in survival to hospital discharge between women and men (34.5% versus 36.7%; adjusted relative risk: 1.00 [95% CI, 0.99-1.02]; P =0.74) was appreciated. Conclusions In patients successfully resuscitated from in-hospital cardiac arrest, there was no survival difference between men and women while accounting for DNAR. However, women had a higher rate of DNAR status early after resuscitation (<12 and <72 hours) in comparison to men.

Background and Objectives: Patients on maintenance dialysis with in-hospital cardiac arrest have been reported to have worse outcomes relative to those not on dialysis; however, it is unknown if poor outcomes are related to the quality of resuscitation. Using the Get With The Guidelines-Resuscitation (GWTG-R) registry, we examined processes of care and outcomes of in-hospital cardiac arrest for patients on maintenance dialysis compared with nondialysis patients., Design, Setting, Participants, & Measurements: We used GWTG-R data linked to Centers for Medicare and Medicaid data to identify patients with ESKD receiving maintenance dialysis from 2000 to 2012. We then case-matched adult patients on maintenance dialysis to nondialysis patients in a 1:3 ratio on the basis of age, sex, race, hospital, and year of arrest. Logistic regression models with generalized estimating equations were used to assess the association of in-hospital cardiac arrest and outcomes by dialysis status., Results: After matching, there were a total of 31,144 GWTG-R patients from 372 sites, of which 8498 (27%) were on maintenance dialysis. Patients on maintenance dialysis were less likely to have a shockable initial rhythm (20% versus 21%) and less likely to be within the intensive care unit at the time of arrest (46% versus 47%) compared with nondialysis patients; they also had lower composite scores for resuscitation quality (89% versus 90%) and were less likely to have defibrillation within 2 minutes (54% versus 58%). After adjustment, patients on maintenance dialysis had similar adjusted odds of survival to discharge (odds ratio [OR], 1.05; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.97 to 1.13), better acute survival (OR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.26 to 1.40), and were more likely to have favorable neurologic status (OR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.04 to 1.22) compared with nondialysis patients., Conclusions: Although there appears to be opportunities to improve the quality of in-hospital cardiac arrest care for among those on maintenance dialysis, survival to discharge was similar for these patients compared with nondialysis patients., (Copyright © 2020 by the American Society of Nephrology.)

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., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

The fundamentals of cardiac resuscitation include the immediate provision of high-quality cardiopulmonary resuscitation combined with rapid defibrillation (as appropriate). These mainstays of therapy set the groundwork for other possible interventions such as medications, advanced airways, extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation, and post-cardiac arrest care, including targeted temperature management, cardiorespiratory support, and percutaneous coronary intervention. Since 2015, an increased number of studies have been published evaluating some of these interventions, requiring a reassessment of their use and impact on survival from cardiac arrest. This 2019 focused update to the American Heart Association advanced cardiovascular life support guidelines summarizes the most recent published evidence for and recommendations on the use of advanced airways, vasopressors, and extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation during cardiac arrest. It includes revised recommendations for all 3 areas, including the choice of advanced airway devices and strategies during cardiac arrest (eg, bag-mask ventilation, supraglottic airway, or endotracheal intubation), the training and retraining required, the administration of standard-dose epinephrine, and the decisions involved in the application of extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation and its potential impact on cardiac arrest survival.

Background: Good outcomes for in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA) depend on a skilled resuscitation team, prompt initiation of high-quality cardiopulmonary resuscitation and defibrillation, and organisational structures to support IHCA response. We examined the role of nurses in resuscitation, contrasting higher versus lower performing hospitals in IHCA survival., Methods: We conducted a descriptive qualitative study at nine hospitals in the American Heart Association's Get With The Guidelines-Resuscitation registry, purposefully sampling hospitals that varied in geography, academic status, and risk-standardised IHCA survival. We conducted 158 semistructured interviews with nurses, physicians, respiratory therapists, pharmacists, quality improvement staff, and administrators. Qualitative thematic text analysis followed by type-building text analysis identified distinct nursing roles in IHCA care and support for roles., Results: Nurses played three major roles in IHCA response: bedside first responder, resuscitation team member, and clinical or administrative leader. We found distinctions between higher and lower performing hospitals in support for nurses. Higher performing hospitals emphasised training and competency of nurses at all levels; provided organisational flexibility and responsiveness with nursing roles; and empowered nurses to operate at a higher scope of clinical practice (eg, bedside defibrillation). Higher performing hospitals promoted nurses as leaders-administrators supporting nurses in resuscitation care at the institution, resuscitation team leaders during resuscitation and clinical champions for resuscitation care. Lower performing hospitals had more restrictive nurse roles with less emphasis on systematically identifying improvement needs., Conclusion: Hospitals that excelled in IHCA survival emphasised mentoring and empowering front-line nurses and ensured clinical competency and adequate nursing training for IHCA care. Though not proof of causation, nurses appear to be critical to effective IHCA response, and how to support their role to optimise outcomes warrants further investigation., Competing Interests: Competing interests: PC receives funding from the National Institutes of Health and has received consultant funding from the American Heart Association and Optum Rx. BK is a principal investigator or co-investigator on research grants from the NIH, VA HSR&D, the American Heart Association, Apple, Inc, and Toyota. He also receives compensation as Editor-in-Chief of Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality & Outcomes, a journal of the American Heart Association. Finally, he is a co-inventor on U.S. Utility Patent Number US15/356,012 (US20170148158A1) entitled “Automated Analysis of Vasculature in Coronary Angiograms” that uses software technology with signal processing and machine learning to automate the reading of coronary angiograms, held by the University of Michigan. The patent is licensed to AngioInsight, Inc., in which BK holds ownership shares (although it has yet to be funded). None of these are related to the current work., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Utstein-style reporting templates provide a structured framework with which to compare systems of care for cardiac arrest. The 2004 Utstein reporting template encompassed both out-of-hospital and in-hospital cardiac arrest. A 2015 update of the Utstein template focused on out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, which makes this update of the in-hospital template timely. Representatives of the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation developed an updated in-hospital Utstein reporting template iteratively by meeting face-to-face, by teleconference, and by online surveys between 2013 and 2018. Data elements were grouped by hospital factors, patient variables, pre-event factors, cardiac arrest and postresuscitation processes, and outcomes. Elements were classified as core or supplemental by use of a modified Delphi process. Variables were described as core if they were considered essential. Core variables should enable reasonable comparisons between systems and are considered essential for quality improvement programs. Together with core variables, supplementary variables are considered useful for research., (Copyright © 2019 European Resuscitation Council, American Heart Association, Inc. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Previous incidence estimates may no longer reflect the current public health burden of cardiac arrest in hospitalized adult and pediatric patients across the United States. The aim of this study was to estimate the contemporary annual incidence of in-hospital cardiac arrest in adults and children across the United States and to describe trends in incidence between 2008 and 2017., Methods and Results: Using the Get With The Guidelines– Resuscitation registry, we developed a negative binomial regression model to estimate the incidence of index pulseless in-hospital cardiac arrest based on hospital-level characteristics. The model was used to predict the number of in-hospital cardiac arrests in all US hospitals, using data from the American Hospital Association Annual Survey. We performed separate analyses for adult (≥18 years) and pediatric (<18 years) cardiac arrests. Additional analyses were performed for recurrent cardiac arrests and pediatric patients requiring cardiopulmonary resuscitation for poor perfusion (nonpulseless events). The average annual incidence of in-hospital cardiac arrest in the United States was estimated at 292 000 (95% prediction interval, 217 600–503 500) adult and 15 200 pediatric cases, of which 7100 (95% prediction interval, 4400–9900) cases were pulseless cardiac arrests and 8100 (95% prediction interval, 4700–11 500) cases were nonpulseless events. The rate of adult cardiac arrests increased over time, while pediatric events remained more stable. When including both index and recurrent inhospital cardiac arrests, the average annual incidence was estimated at 357 900 (95% prediction interval, 247 100–598 400) adult and 19 900 pediatric cases, of which 8300 (95% prediction interval, 4900–11 200) cases were pulseless cardiac arrests and 11 600 (95% prediction interval, 6400–16 700) cases were nonpulseless events., Conclusions: There are ≈292 000 adult in-hospital cardiac arrests and 15 200 pediatric in-hospital events in the United States each year. This study provides contemporary estimates of the public health burden of cardiac arrest among hospitalized patients., Competing Interests: None., (© 2019 American Heart Association, Inc.)

Importance: Several clinical decision rules (CDRs) have been developed to help practitioners know when to safely terminate resuscitative efforts after in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA). The UN10 rule, a CDR that uses 3 intra-arrest variables, has been shown to predict a poor chance of survival to discharge. However, its large-scale applicability in clinical settings remains unknown., Objective: To assess the performance of a parsimonious CDR in a national cohort of individuals with IHCA., Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study used a nationwide cohort from the American Heart Association Get With the Guidelines-Resuscitation IHCA registry to derive a sample of 96 509 patients from 716 US hospitals who experienced IHCA from January 1, 2000, to January 26, 2016. Data analysis began in January 2018 and concluded in June 2018., Exposures: The UN10 rule uses 3 variables: (1) unwitnessed arrest, (2) nonshockable rhythm, and (3) no return of spontaneous circulation within 10 minutes of resuscitative efforts. The CDR indicates futility if all 3 criteria are met. This CDR was analyzed according to the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) reporting guideline., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was survival to hospital discharge following resuscitation. Favorable neurologic status at discharge was also assessed. Overall rates of survival and survival with favorable neurologic status (cerebral performance category score, 1 or 2) were compared with predicted values by the UN10 rule using 2 × 2 contingency tables., Results: Of 96 509 patients, 55 761 (57.8%) were men, and the mean (SD) age was 67.1 (15.3) years. In total, 18 713 patients (19.4%) survived to discharge, and 16 134 patients (16.7%) were discharged with a favorable neurologic status. Overall, 15 838 patients (16.4%) met all 3 criteria for futility in the UN10 rule. A total of 1005 patients (6.3%) who met the UN10 rule survived to discharge, and 754 (4.8%) survived with favorable neurologic status. The percentage of patients meeting the UN10 rule (ie, predicting futile resuscitation) who actually survived in our study cohort was substantially higher than the initial derivation cohort (0%) and single-center validation cohort (1.1%). The positive predictive value of the UN10 rule was 93.7% (95% CI, 93.3%-94.0%), which was lower than the initial derivation cohort (100%; 95% CI, 97.5%-100%) and validation cohort (98.9%; 95% CI, 96.5%-99.7%)., Conclusions and Relevance: Patients who met the UN10 rule were associated with unfavorable neurologic status and low rates of survival after IHCA. Yet their survival rates are higher than reported in the initial validation study, raising the question of whether the UN10 rule may have limited utility as a definitive measure of futility during resuscitations in real-world clinical settings.

What We Already Know About This Topic: Rapid response to witnessed, pulseless cardiac arrest is associated with increased survival., What This Article Tells Us That Is New: Assessment of witnessed, pulseless cardiac arrests occurring at 538 hospitals during a 9-yr period indicates that CPR did not occur immediately at 0 min in 5.7% of patients despite guidelines for instantaneous initiation. Delay in initiation of CPR was associated with significantly decreased survival.Time to initiation of CPR and subsequent time to initiation of administration of defibrillation shock (for shockable arrhythmias) and epinephrine were both associated with reduced patient survival., Background: Because the extent to which delays in initiating cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) versus the time from CPR to defibrillation or epinephrine treatment affects survival remains unknown, it was hypothesized that all three independently decrease survival in in-hospital cardiac arrest., Methods: Witnessed, index cases of cardiac arrest from the Get With The Guidelines-Resuscitation Database occurring between 2000 and 2008 in 538 hospitals were included in this analysis. Multivariable risk-adjusted logistic regression examined the association of time to initiation of CPR and time from CPR to either epinephrine treatment or defibrillation with survival to discharge., Results: In the overall cohort of 57,312 patients, there were 9,802 survivors (17.1%). Times to initiation of CPR greater than 2 min were associated with a survival of 14.7% (91 of 618) as compared with 17.1% (9,711 of 56,694) if CPR was begun in 2 min or less (adjusted odds ratio [95% CI], 0.68 [0.54 to 0.87]; P < 0.002). Times from CPR to either defibrillation or epinephrine treatment of 2 min or less were associated with a survival of 18.0% (7,654 of 42,475), as compared with 15.0% (1,680 of 11,227) for 3 to 5 min (reference, 0 to 2 min; adjusted odds ratios [95% CI], 0.83 [0.78 to 0.88]; P < 0.001), 12.8% (382 of 2,983) for 6 to 8 min (0.67 [0.60 to 0.76], P < 0.001), and 13.7% (86 of 627) for 9 to 11 min (0.54 [0.42 to 0.69], P < 0.001)., Conclusions: Delays in the initiation of CPR and from CPR to defibrillation or epinephrine treatment were each associated with lower survival.

Background Hospitals participating in the national Get With The Guidelines-Resuscitation registry receive an award for high rates of adherence to quality metrics for in-hospital cardiac arrest. We sought to evaluate whether awards based on these quality metrics can be considered a proxy for performance on cardiac arrest survival. Methods and Results Among 195 hospitals with continuous participation in Get With The Guidelines-Resuscitation between 2012 and 2015, we identified 78 that received an award (Gold or Silver) for ≥85% compliance for all 4 metrics for in-hospital cardiac arrest-time to chest compressions, ≤1 minute; time to defibrillation, ≤2 minutes; device confirmation of endotracheal tube placement; and a monitored/witnessed arrest-for at least 12 consecutive months during 2014 to 2015. Award hospitals had higher cardiac arrest volumes than nonaward hospitals but otherwise had similar site characteristics. During 2014 to 2015, award hospitals had higher rates of return of spontaneous circulation for in-hospital cardiac arrest than nonaward hospitals (median [interquartile range], 71% [64%-77%] versus 66% [59%-74%]; Spearman ρ, 0.19; P=0.009). However, rates of risk-standardized survival to discharge at award hospitals (median, 25% [interquartile range, 22%-30%]) were similar to nonaward hospitals (median, 24% [interquartile range, 12%-27%]; Spearman ρ, 0.13; P=0.06). Among hospitals in the best tertile for survival to discharge in 2014 to 2015, 55.4% (36/65) did not receive an award, with poor discrimination of high-performing hospitals by award status (C statistic, 0.53). Similarly, there was only a weak association between hospitals' award status in 2014 to 2015 and their rates of survival to discharge in the preceding 2-year period (Spearman ρ, 0.16; P=0.03). Conclusions The current recognition mechanism within a national registry for in-hospital cardiac arrest captures hospital performance on return of spontaneous circulation but is not well correlated with survival to discharge. This suggests that current awards for resuscitation quality may not adequately capture hospital performance on overall survival-the outcome of greatest interest to patients.

Antiarrhythmic medications are commonly administered during and immediately after a ventricular fibrillation/pulseless ventricular tachycardia cardiac arrest. However, it is unclear whether these medications improve patient outcomes. This 2018 American Heart Association focused update on advanced cardiovascular life support guidelines summarizes the most recent published evidence for and recommendations on the use of antiarrhythmic drugs during and immediately after shock-refractory ventricular fibrillation/pulseless ventricular tachycardia cardiac arrest. This article includes the revised recommendation that providers may consider either amiodarone or lidocaine to treat shock-refractory ventricular fibrillation/pulseless ventricular tachycardia cardiac arrest.

The formula for survival in resuscitation describes educational efficiency and local implementation as key determinants in survival after cardiac arrest. Current educational offerings in the form of standardized online and face-to-face courses are falling short, with providers demonstrating a decay of skills over time. This translates to suboptimal clinical care and poor survival outcomes from cardiac arrest. In many institutions, guidelines taught in courses are not thoughtfully implemented in the clinical environment. A current synthesis of the evidence supporting best educational and knowledge translation strategies in resuscitation is lacking. In this American Heart Association scientific statement, we provide a review of the literature describing key elements of educational efficiency and local implementation, including mastery learning and deliberate practice, spaced practice, contextual learning, feedback and debriefing, assessment, innovative educational strategies, faculty development, and knowledge translation and implementation. For each topic, we provide suggestions for improving provider performance that may ultimately optimize patient outcomes from cardiac arrest.

Background: Despite the high incidence of in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA) in US hospitals, the prognosis and end-of-life decision-making patterns of a patient with a recurrent IHCA are unknown., Methods: Within Get-With-The-Guidelines-Resuscitation, we identified 192,250 patients from 711 hospitals with an IHCA from 2000 to 2015. Patients were categorized as having no recurrent IHCA (only 1 event), recurrent IHCA (≥2 IHCAs), and recurrent out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA), defined as an IHCA after an OHCA. Using multivariable hierarchical logistic regression, rates of survival to discharge and favorable neurological survival (mild or no disability) between the 3 groups were compared. Rates of de novo "do not attempt resuscitation" (DNAR) and withdrawal of care orders among successfully resuscitated patients were also evaluated., Results: Overall, 165,446 (86.1%) had no recurrent IHCA, 23,643 (12.3%) had recurrent IHCA, and 3162 (1.6%) had recurrent OHCA. Compared with patients with no recurrent IHCA, patients with recurrent IHCA were less than half as likely to survive to discharge (12.7% vs 22.1%; adjusted OR: 0.46 [0.44-0.48], P < .001) and have favorable neurological survival (7.0% vs 13.1%; adjusted OR: 0.44 [0.42-0.47], P < .001). Compared with patients with recurrent OHCA, patients with recurrent IHCA also had lower rates of survival to discharge (12.7% vs 16.1%; adjusted OR: 0.81 [0.71-0.94], P = .005) and favorable neurological survival (7.0% vs 8.9%; adjusted OR: 0.66 [0.54-0.81], P < .001). Despite worse survival outcomes, patients with recurrent IHCA were least likely to adopt DNAR orders within the first 24 hours after successful resuscitation compared with patients with no recurrent IHCA or recurrent OHCA (17.2% vs 18.9% and 26.6%, respectively) or withdraw care at any time (17.7% vs 24.4% and 31.2%, respectively)., Conclusions: Nearly 1 in 8 patients with an IHCA has a recurrent IHCA, and these patients have worse outcomes than patients with only a single IHCA and those with an IHCA after being hospitalized for an OHCA. Despite worse survival, rates of DNAR and withdrawal of care were lowest for patients with recurrent IHCA. These findings provide important prognostic information for clinicians caring for patients with recurrent IHCA and suggest the need to better align resuscitation and end-of-life decisions with patients' prognoses after IHCA., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: In-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA) is common, and outcomes vary substantially across US hospitals, but reasons for these differences are largely unknown. We set out to better understand how top-performing hospitals organize their resuscitation teams to achieve high survival rates for IHCA., Methods: We calculated risk-standardized IHCA survival to discharge rates across American Heart Association Get With The Guidelines-Resuscitation registry hospitals between 2012 and 2014. We identified geographically and academically diverse hospitals in the top, middle, and bottom quartiles of survival for IHCA and performed a qualitative study that included site visits with in-depth interviews of clinical and administrative staff at 9 hospitals. With the use of thematic analysis, data were analyzed to identify salient themes of perceived performance by informants., Results: Across 9 hospitals, we interviewed 158 individuals from multiple disciplines including physicians (17.1%), nurses (45.6%), other clinical staff (17.1%), and administration (20.3%). We identified 4 broad themes related to resuscitation teams: (1) team design, (2) team composition and roles, (3) communication and leadership during IHCA, and (4) training and education. Resuscitation teams at top-performing hospitals demonstrated the following features: dedicated or designated resuscitation teams; participation of diverse disciplines as team members during IHCA; clear roles and responsibilities of team members; better communication and leadership during IHCA; and in-depth mock codes., Conclusions: Resuscitation teams at hospitals with high IHCA survival differ from non-top-performing hospitals. Our findings suggest core elements of successful resuscitation teams that are associated with better outcomes and form the basis for future work to improve IHCA., (© 2018 American Heart Association, Inc.)

Background: Prior studies have reported higher in-hospital survival with prompt defibrillation and epinephrine treatment in patients with in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA). Whether this survival benefit persists after discharge is unknown., Methods: We linked data from a national IHCA registry with Medicare files and identified 36 961 patients ≥65 years of age with an IHCA at 517 hospitals between 2000 and 2011. Patients with IHCA caused by pulseless ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation were stratified by prompt (≤2 minutes) versus delayed (>2 minutes) defibrillation, whereas patients with IHCA caused by asystole or pulseless electric activity were stratified by prompt (≤5 minutes) versus delayed (>5 minutes) epinephrine treatment. The association between prompt treatment and long-term survival for each rhythm type was assessed with multivariable hierarchical modified Poisson regression models., Results: Of 8119 patients with an IHCA caused by ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation, the rate of 1-year survival was higher in those treated with prompt defibrillation than with delayed defibrillation (25.7% [1466 of 5714] versus 15.5% [373 of 2405]; adjusted relative risk [RR], 1.49; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.32-1.69; P <0.0001). This survival advantage persisted at 3 years (19.1% versus 11.0%; adjusted RR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.23-1.69; P <0.0001) and at 5 years (14.7% versus 7.9%; adjusted RR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.22-1.83; P <0.0001). Of 28 842 patients with an IHCA caused by asystole/pulseless electric activity, the rate of 1-year survival with prompt epinephrine treatment was higher than with delayed treatment (5.4% [1341 of 24 885] versus 4.3% [168 of 3957]; adjusted RR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.02-1.41; P =0.02), but this survival benefit was no longer present at 3 years (3.5% versus 2.9%; adjusted RR, 1.17; 95% CI, 0.95-1.45; P =0.15) and at 5 years (2.3% versus 1.9%; adjusted RR, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.88-1.58; P =0.27)., Conclusions: Prompt defibrillation for IHCA caused by ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation was associated with higher rates of long-term survival throughout 5 years of follow-up, whereas prompt epinephrine treatment for asystole/pulseless electric activity was associated with greater survival at 1 year but not at 3 or 5 years. By quantifying the greater survival associated with timely defibrillation and epinephrine administration, these findings provide important insights into the durability of survival benefits for 2 process-of-care measures in current resuscitation guidelines., (© 2017 American Heart Association, Inc.)

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≥65years) 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., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: In-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA) is common and often fatal. However, the association between timing of cardiac arrest and likelihood of survival to discharge, neurological status, and subsequent hospital length of stay (LOS) is unknown., Methods: Within the Get-With-The-Guidelines Resuscitation registry, we identified 175,904 patients between 2000 and 2014 with an IHCA. Time from admission to IHCA was categorized as <3, 3-7, or >7days from admission. Multivariable hierarchical logistic regression models examined the association between timing of IHCA and survival to discharge, and, among survivors, favorable neurological survival (cerebral performance category score of 1) and LOS after IHCA., Results: Overall, 83,811 (47.6%) of IHCAs occurred <3days from admission, whereas 47,713 (27.1%) and 44,380 (25.5%) occurred between 3 and 7 and >7days from admission, respectively. Cardiac arrests occurring later during the hospitalization were associated with lower survival ([reference: <3days]; for 3-7days: adjusted OR 0.93 [0.90-0.96]; for >7days: adjusted OR 0.89 [0.86-0.92]; P<0.01) and favorable neurological survival ([reference: <3days]; for 3-7days: adjusted OR 0.83 [0.77-0.89], for >7days: adjusted OR 0.55 [0.51-0.59]; P<0.01). Among survivors, later timing of IHCA was associated with longer subsequent LOS ([reference: <3days]; for 3-7days: 2.7 additional days [2.2-3.2]; for >7days: 6.8 additional days [6.3-7.3]; P<0.001)., Conclusion: Most IHCA occur after 3 hospitalization days. Patients with IHCA after 3 hospital days had lower rates of survival to discharge, and, among survivors, lower rates of favorable neurological survival and longer duration of hospitalization from the time of cardiac arrest., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Despite significant attention to resuscitation care by hospitals, national data on trends in the incidence and survival of patients with inhospital cardiac arrest (IHCA) are limited., Objective: To determine trends and hospital-level variation in the incidence and outcomes associated with IHCA. In exploratory analyses, we evaluated the relationship between hospital-level IHCA incidence and outcomes with general hospital-wide quality improvement activities., Design, Setting, and Participants: Retrospective cohort study of 2,205,123 hospitalizations at 101 Veterans Health Administration (VHA) hospitals between 2008 and 2012., Main Outcomes: Risk- and reliability-adjusted hospital-level IHCA incidence and survival to hospital discharge., Results: A total of 8821 (0.40%) IHCA occurred between 2008 and 2012, with no significant change in risk-adjusted incidence over this time (P = .77). Hospital-level IHCA incidence varied substantially across facilities, with a median hospital incidence of 4.0 per 1000 hospitalizations and a range from 1.4 to 11.8 per 1000 hospitalizations. Overall, survival to discharge after IHCA was 31.2%. Risk-adjusted odds of survival increased over the study period (2012 vs 2008, OR: 1.49, 95% CI: 1.27, 1.75) but survival varied substantially across facilities from 20.3% to 45.4%. General hospital quality improvement activities were inconsistently associated with IHCA incidence and survival., Conclusions: Within the VHA, the incidence and outcomes of IHCA showed important trends over time but varied substantially across hospitals with no consistent link to general hospital quality improvement activities. Identification of specific resuscitation practices at hospitals with low incidence and high survival of IHCA may guide further improvements for inhospital resuscitation., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Current guidelines recommend deferring prognostication for 48 to 72 hours after resuscitation from inhospital cardiac arrest. It is unknown whether hospitals vary in making patients who survive an arrest Do-Not-Resuscitate (DNR) early after resuscitation and whether a hospital's rate of early DNR is associated with its rate of favorable neurological survival., Methods: Within Get With the Guidelines-Resuscitation, we identified 24,899 patients from 236 hospitals who achieved return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) after inhospital cardiac arrest between 2006 and 2012. Hierarchical models were constructed to derive risk-adjusted hospital rates of DNR status adoption ≤12 hours after ROSC and risk-standardized rates of favorable neurological survival (without severe disability; Cerebral Performance Category ≤2). The association between hospitals' rates of early DNR and favorable neurological survival was evaluated using correlation statistics., Results: Of 236 hospitals, 61.7% were academic, 83% had ≥200 beds, and 94% were urban. Overall, 5577 (22.4%) patients were made DNR ≤12 hours after ROSC. Risk-adjusted hospital rates of early DNR varied widely (7.1%-40.5%, median: 22.7% [IQR: 19.3%-26.1%]; median OR of 1.48). Significant hospital variation existed in risk-standardized rates of favorable neurological survival (3.5%-44.8%, median: 25.3% [IQR: 20.2%-29.4%]; median OR 1.72). Hospitals' risk-adjusted rates of early DNR were inversely correlated with their risk-standardized rates of favorable neurological survival (r=-0.179, P=.006)., Conclusions: Despite current guideline recommendations, many patients with inhospital cardiac arrest are made DNR within 12 hours after ROSC, and hospitals vary widely in rates of early DNR. Higher hospital rates of early DNR were associated with worse meaningful survival outcomes., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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. Among patients with ROSC, 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 frequently made DNAR within 48 hours of ROSC. These findings have important implications for discussions of resuscitation care wishes with patients and can better inform end-of-life discussions.

Importance: Previous studies have found marked differences in survival after in-hospital cardiac arrest by race. Whether racial differences in survival have narrowed as overall survival has improved remains unknown., Objectives: To examine whether racial differences in survival after in-hospital cardiac arrest have narrowed over time and if such differences could be explained by acute resuscitation survival, postresuscitation survival, and/or greater temporal improvement in survival at hospitals with higher proportions of black patients., Design, Setting, and Participants: In this cohort study from Get With the Guidelines-Resuscitation, performed from January 1, 2000, through December 31, 2014, a total of 112 139 patients with in-hospital cardiac arrest who were hospitalized in intensive care units or general inpatient units were studied. Data analysis was performed from April 7, 2015, to May 24, 2017., Exposure: Race (black or white)., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was survival to discharge. Secondary outcomes were acute resuscitation survival and postresuscitation survival. Multivariable hierarchical (2-level) regression models were used to calculate calendar-year rates of survival for black and white patients after adjusting for baseline characteristics., Results: Among 112 139 patients with in-hospital cardiac arrest, 30 241 (27.0%) were black (mean [SD] age, 61.6 [16.4] years) and 81 898 (73.0%) were white (mean [SD] age, 67.5 [15.2] years). Risk-adjusted survival improved over time in black (11.3% in 2000 and 21.4% in 2014) and white patients (15.8% in 2000 and 23.2% in 2014; P for trend <.001 for both), with greater survival improvement among black patients on an absolute (P for trend = .02) and relative scale (P for interaction = .01). A reduction in survival differences between black and white patients was attributable to elimination of racial differences in acute resuscitation survival (black individuals: 44.7% in 2000 and 64.1% in 2014; white individuals: 47.1% in 2000 and 64.0% in 2014; P for interaction <.001). Compared with hospitals with fewer black patients, hospitals with a higher proportion of black patients with in-hospital cardiac arrest achieved larger survival gains over time., Conclusions and Relevance: A substantial reduction in racial differences in survival after in-hospital cardiac arrest has occurred that has been largely mediated by elimination of racial differences in acute resuscitation survival and greater survival improvement at hospitals with a higher proportion of black patients. Further understanding of the mechanisms of this improvement could provide novel insights for the elimination of racial differences in survival for other conditions.

Background: Medical Emergency Teams (METs) are designed to respond to signs of clinical decline in order to prevent cardiopulmonary arrest and reduce mortality. The frequency of MET activation prior to pediatric cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is unknown., Methods: Within the Get With The Guidelines-Resuscitation Registry (GWTG-R), we identified children with bradycardia or cardiac arrest requiring CPR on the general inpatient or telemetry floors from 2007 to 2013. We examined the frequency with which CPR outside the ICU was preceded by a MET evaluation. In cases where MET evaluation did not occur, we examined the frequency of severely abnormal vital signs at least 1hour prior to CPR that could have prompted a MET evaluation but did not., Results: Of 215 children from 23 hospitals requiring CPR, 48 (22.3%) had a preceding MET evaluation. Children with MET evaluation prior to CPR were older (6.8±6.5 vs. 3.1±4.7 years of age, p<0.001) and were more likely to have metabolic/electrolyte abnormalities (18.8% vs. 5.4%, p=0.006), sepsis (16.7% vs. 4.8%, p=0.01), or malignancy (22.9% vs. 5.4%, p<0.001). Among patients who did not have a MET called and with information on vital signs, 55/141 (39.0%) had at least one abnormal vital sign that could have triggered a MET., Conclusion: The majority of pediatric patients requiring CPR for bradycardia or cardiac arrest do not have a preceding MET evaluation despite a significant number meeting criteria that could have triggered the MET. This suggests opportunities to more efficiently use MET teams in routine care., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)