Search

People who experience out-of-hospital cardiac arrest often require care at a regional center for continued treatment after resuscitation, but many do not initially present to the hospital where they will be admitted. For patients who require interfacility transport after cardiac arrest, the decision to transfer between centers is complex and often based on individual clinical characteristics, resources at the presenting hospital, and available transport resources. Once the decision has been made to transfer a patient after cardiac arrest, there is little direct guidance on how best to provide interfacility transport. Accepting centers depend on transferring emergency departments and emergency medical services professionals to make important and nuanced decisions about postresuscitation care that may determine the efficacy of future treatments. The consequences of early care are greater when transport delays occur, which is common in rural areas or due to inclement weather. Challenges of providing interfacility transfer services for patients who have experienced cardiac arrest include varying expertise of clinicians, differing resources available to them, and nonstandardized communication between transferring and receiving centers. Although many aspects of care are insufficiently studied to determine implications for specific out-of-hospital treatment on outcomes, a general approach of maintaining otherwise recommended postresuscitation care during interfacility transfer is reasonable. This includes close attention to airway, vascular access, ventilator management, sedation, cardiopulmonary monitoring, antiarrhythmic treatments, blood pressure control, temperature control, and metabolic management. Patient stability for transfer, equity and inclusion, and communication also must be considered. Many of these aspects can be delivered by protocol-driven care.

Background: Physicians, patients, and families alike perceive a need to improve how goals of care (GOC) decisions occur in chronic critical illness (CCI), but little is currently known about this decision-making process., Research Question: How do intensivists from various health systems facilitate decision-making about GOC for patients with CCI? What are barriers to, and facilitators of, this decision-making process?, Study Design and Methods: We conducted semistructured interviews with a purposeful sample of intensivists from the United States and Canada using a mental models approach adapted from decision science. We analyzed transcripts inductively using qualitative description., Results: We interviewed 29 intensivists from six institutions. Participants across all sites described GOC decision-making in CCI as a complex, longitudinal, and iterative process that involved substantial preparatory work, numerous stakeholders, and multiple family meetings. Intensivists required considerable time to collect information on prior events and conversations, and to arrive at a prognostic consensus with other involved physicians prior to meeting with families. Many intensivists stressed the importance of scheduling multiple family meetings to build trust and relationships prior to explicitly discussing GOC. Physician-identified barriers to GOC decision-making included 1-week staffing models, limited time and cognitive bandwidth, difficulty eliciting patient values, and interpersonal challenges with care team members or families. Potential facilitators included scheduled family meetings at regular intervals, greater interprofessional involvement in decisions, and consistent messaging from care team members., Interpretation: Intensivists described a complex time- and labor-intensive group process to achieve GOC decision-making in CCI. System-level interventions that improve how information is shared between physicians and decrease logistical and relational barriers to timely and consistent communication are key to improving GOC decision-making in CCI., Competing Interests: Financial/Nonfinancial Disclosures None declared., (Copyright © 2024 American College of Chest Physicians. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The critical care management of patients after cardiac arrest is burdened by a lack of high-quality clinical studies and the resultant lack of high-certainty evidence. This results in limited practice guideline recommendations, which may lead to uncertainty and variability in management. Critical care management is crucial in patients after cardiac arrest and affects outcome. Although guidelines address some relevant topics (including temperature control and neurological prognostication of comatose survivors, 2 topics for which there are more robust clinical studies), many important subject areas have limited or nonexistent clinical studies, leading to the absence of guidelines or low-certainty evidence. The American Heart Association Emergency Cardiovascular Care Committee and the Neurocritical Care Society collaborated to address this gap by organizing an expert consensus panel and conference. Twenty-four experienced practitioners (including physicians, nurses, pharmacists, and a respiratory therapist) from multiple medical specialties, levels, institutions, and countries made up the panel. Topics were identified and prioritized by the panel and arranged by organ system to facilitate discussion, debate, and consensus building. Statements related to postarrest management were generated, and 80% agreement was required to approve a statement. Voting was anonymous and web based. Topics addressed include neurological, cardiac, pulmonary, hematological, infectious, gastrointestinal, endocrine, and general critical care management. Areas of uncertainty, areas for which no consensus was reached, and future research directions are also included. Until high-quality studies that inform practice guidelines in these areas are available, the expert panel consensus statements that are provided can advise clinicians on the critical care management of patients after cardiac arrest., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Background Variation exists in outcomes following out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA), but whether racial and ethnic disparities exist in post-arrest provision of targeted temperature management (TTM) is unknown. Methods and Results We performed a retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected cohort of patients who survived to admission following OHCA from the Cardiac Arrest Registry to Enhance Survival, whose catchment area represents ~50% of the United States from 2013-2019. Our primary exposure was race/ethnicity and primary outcome was utilization of TTM. We built a mixed-effects model with both state of arrest and admitting hospital modeled as random intercepts to account for clustering. Among 96,695 patients (24.6% Black, 8.0% Hispanic/Latino, 63.4% White), a smaller percentage of Hispanic/Latino patients received TTM than Black or White patients (37.5% vs. 45.0 % vs 43.3%, P < .001) following OHCA. In the mixed-effects model, Black patients (Odds Ratio [OR] 1.153, 95% Confidence Interval [CI] 1.102-1.207, P < .001) and Hispanic/Latino patients (OR 1.086, 95% CI 1.017-1.159, P < .001) were slightly more likely to receive TTM compared to White patients, perhaps due to worse admission neurological status. We did find community level disparity as Hispanic/Latino-serving hospitals (defined as the top decile of hospitals that cared for the highest proportion of Hispanic/Latino patients) provided less TTM (OR 0.587, 95% CI 0.474 to 0.742, P < .001). Conclusions Reassuringly, we did not find evidence of intrahospital or interpersonal racial or ethnic disparity in the provision of TTM. However, we did find inter-hospital, community level disparity. Hispanic/Latino-serving hospitals provided less guideline-recommended TTM after OHCA.

Background: The American College of Cardiology Interventional Council published consensus-based recommendations to help identify resuscitated cardiac arrest patients with unfavorable clinical features in whom invasive procedures are unlikely to improve survival., Objectives: This study sought to identify how many unfavorable features are required before prognosis is significantly worsened and which features are most impactful in predicting prognosis., Methods: Using the INTCAR (International Cardiac Arrest Registry), the impact of each proposed "unfavorable feature" on survival to hospital discharge was individually analyzed. Logistic regression was performed to assess the association of such unfavorable features with poor outcomes., Results: Seven unfavorable features (of 10 total) were captured in 2,508 patients successfully resuscitated after cardiac arrest (ongoing cardiopulmonary resuscitation and noncardiac etiology were exclusion criteria in our registry). Chronic kidney disease was used in lieu of end-stage renal disease. In total, 39% survived to hospital discharge. The odds ratio (OR) of survival to hospital discharge for each unfavorable feature was as follows: age >85 years OR: 0.30 (95% CI: 0.15 to 0.61), time-to-ROSC >30 min OR: 0.30 (95% CI: 0.23 to 0.39), nonshockable rhythm OR: 0.39 (95% CI: 0.29 to 0.54), no bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation OR: 0.49 (95% CI: 0.38 to 0.64), lactate >7 mmol/l OR: 0.50 (95% CI: 0.40 to 0.63), unwitnessed arrest OR: 0.58 (95% CI: 0.44 to 0.78), pH <7.2 OR: 0.78 (95% CI: 0.63 to 0.98), and chronic kidney disease OR: 0.96 (95% CI: 0.70 to 1.33). The presence of any 3 or more unfavorable features predicted <40% survival. Presence of the 3 strongest risk factors (age >85 years, time-to-ROSC >30 min, and non-ventricular tachycardia/ventricular fibrillation) together or ≥6 unfavorable features predicted a ≤10% chance of survival to discharge., Conclusions: Patients successfully resuscitated from cardiac arrest with 6 or more unfavorable features have a poor long-term prognosis. Delaying or even forgoing invasive procedures in such patients is reasonable., Competing Interests: Author Disclosures Dr. Kern has served as a Science Advisory Board Member for Zoll Medical and Physio-Control, Inc., now part of Stryker, Inc. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2021 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: Sedation and neuromuscular blockade protocols in patients undergoing targeted temperature management after cardiac arrest address patient discomfort and manage shivering. These protocols vary widely between centers and may affect outcomes., Design: Consecutive patients admitted to 20 centers after resuscitation from cardiac arrest were prospectively entered into the International Cardiac Arrest Registry between 2006 and 2016. Additional data about each center's sedation and shivering management practice were obtained via survey. Sedation and shivering practices were categorized as escalating doses of sedation and minimal or no neuromuscular blockade (sedation and shivering practice 1), sedation with continuous or scheduled neuromuscular blockade (sedation and shivering practice 2), or sedation with as-needed neuromuscular blockade (sedation and shivering practice 3). Good outcome was defined as Cerebral Performance Category score of 1 or 2. A logistic regression hierarchical model was created with two levels (patient-level data with standard confounders at level 1 and hospitals at level 2) and sedation and shivering practices as a fixed effect at the hospital level. The primary outcome was dichotomized Cerebral Performance Category at 6 months., Setting: Cardiac arrest receiving centers in Europe and the United states from 2006 to 2016 PATIENTS:: Four-thousand two-hundred sixty-seven cardiac arrest patients 18 years old or older enrolled in the International Cardiac Arrest Registry., Interventions: None., Measurements and Main Results: The mean age was 62 ± 15 years, 36% were female, 77% out-of-hospital arrests, and mean ischemic time was 24 (± 18) minutes. Adjusted odds ratio (for age, return of spontaneous circulation, location of arrest, witnessed, initial rhythm, bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation, defibrillation, medical history, country, and size of hospital) was 1.13 (0.74-1.73; p = 0.56) and 1.45 (1.00-2.13; p = 0.046) for sedation and shivering practice 2 and sedation and shivering practice 3, respectively, referenced to sedation and shivering practice 1., Conclusion: Cardiac arrest patients treated at centers using as-needed neuromuscular blockade had increased odds of good outcomes compared with centers using escalating sedation doses and avoidance of neuromuscular blockade, after adjusting for potential confounders. These findings should be further investigated in prospective studies.

Introduction: The long-term risk of seizures in cardiac arrest survivors is not established. We hypothesized that survivors of cardiac arrest face an increased long-term risk for seizures., Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study using 2008-2015 claims data from a nationally representative 5% sample of Medicare beneficiaries ≥66 years-old. Our exposure of interest was a hospital diagnosis code of cardiac arrest, defined by previously validated ICD-9-CM codes. Since we were interested in long-term risk, we excluded patients with a history of seizure, and those who were diagnosed with a seizure during hospitalization or died during the index hospitalization. Our outcome was a diagnosis of seizure. Survival statistics were used to calculate seizure incidence and Cox proportional hazards models were used to determine the association between cardiac arrest and long-term seizures after adjustment for demographics and Charlson comorbidities., Results: Among 1,764,508 beneficiaries with a mean 4.5 years of follow-up, we identified 57,437 patients with cardiac arrest who survived to discharge without a seizure. The annual incidence of seizures was 1.26% (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.20-1.33%) compared to 0.61% (95% CI, 0.61-0.62%) in other Medicare patients. In unadjusted analysis, cardiac arrest was associated with an increased risk of post-discharge seizures (hazard ratio [HR], 1.8; 95% CI, 1.7-1.9), but the association was lost after adjustment for demographics and comorbidities (HR 0.9; 95% CI, 0.9-1.0; P = 0.12)., Conclusion: The long-term risk of seizures was not elevated in patients with cardiac arrest who survived to hospital discharge without a seizure., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Totally implantable venous access devices (TIVADs) or peripherally inserted central venous catheters (PICCs) are commonly used in the care of patients with cystic fibrosis (CF), but they are associated with various complications, including thrombosis, infection, and insertion site symptoms., Methods: We conducted a retrospective review of PICC and TIVAD use in adults and children with CF over an 8-year period at 3 accredited care centers. Patient attributes included CFTR genotype, comorbidities, lung function, body mass index, use of anticoagulation, and respiratory tract microbiology. Catheter data included line type, caliber, and lumen number. We assessed practice variation by surveying physicians., Results: In a population of 592 CF patients, 851 PICC and 61 TIVADs were placed between January 1, 2003 and July 1, 2011. Larger catheter caliber and increased lumen number were risk factors for PICC complications in adults. Patient-related risk factors for PICC complications included poor nutritional status, infection with Burkholderia cepacia spp., and having ≥5 lines inserted during the study period. The probability of a PICC complication varied across centers (2.6% to 14.1%, p=0.001) and remained significant after adjustment for patient-and line-related risk factors. The median complication-free survival of TIVADs, however, did not vary significantly by center (p=0.85)., Conclusions: This is the first longitudinal, multicenter assessment of complication rates for PICCs and TIVADs in a large cohort of adults and children with CF. Specific patient- and catheter-related characteristics were associated with increased risk of complications. Center effects on complication rates were observed for PICCs., (Copyright © 2017 European Cystic Fibrosis Society. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)