Search

Background Adrenaline has been used as a treatment for cardiac arrest for many years, despite uncertainty about its effects on long-term outcomes and concerns that it may cause worse neurological outcomes. Objectives The objectives were to evaluate the effects of adrenaline on survival and neurological outcomes, and to assess the cost-effectiveness of adrenaline use. Design This was a pragmatic, randomised, allocation-concealed, placebo-controlled, parallel-group superiority trial and economic evaluation. Costs are expressed in Great British pounds and reported in 2016/17 prices. Setting This trial was set in five NHS ambulance services in England and Wales. Participants Adults treated for an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest were included. Patients were ineligible if they were pregnant, if they were aged Interventions Participants were randomised to either adrenaline (1 mg) or placebo in a 1 : 1 allocation ratio by the opening of allocation-concealed treatment packs. Main outcome measures The primary outcome was survival to 30 days. The secondary outcomes were survival to hospital admission, survival to hospital discharge, survival at 3, 6 and 12 months, neurological outcomes and health-related quality of life through to 6 months. The economic evaluation assessed the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained from the perspective of the NHS and Personal Social Services. Participants, clinical teams and those assessing patient outcomes were masked to the treatment allocation. Results From December 2014 to October 2017, 8014 participants were assigned to the adrenaline (n = 4015) or to the placebo (n = 3999) arm. At 30 days, 130 out of 4012 participants (3.2%) in the adrenaline arm and 94 out of 3995 (2.4%) in the placebo arm were alive (adjusted odds ratio for survival 1.47, 95% confidence interval 1.09 to 1.97). For secondary outcomes, survival to hospital admission was higher for those receiving adrenaline than for those receiving placebo (23.6% vs. 8.0%; adjusted odds ratio 3.83, 95% confidence interval 3.30 to 4.43). The rate of favourable neurological outcome at hospital discharge was not significantly different between the arms (2.2% vs. 1.9%; adjusted odds ratio 1.19, 95% confidence interval 0.85 to 1.68). The pattern of improved survival but no significant improvement in neurological outcomes continued through to 6 months. By 12 months, survival in the adrenaline arm was 2.7%, compared with 2.0% in the placebo arm (adjusted odds ratio 1.38, 95% confidence interval 1.00 to 1.92). An adjusted subgroup analysis did not identify significant interactions. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for adrenaline was estimated at £1,693,003 per quality-adjusted life-year gained over the first 6 months after the cardiac arrest event and £81,070 per quality-adjusted life-year gained over the lifetime of survivors. Additional economic analyses estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for adrenaline at £982,880 per percentage point increase in overall survival and £377,232 per percentage point increase in neurological outcomes over the first 6 months after the cardiac arrest. Limitations The estimate for survival with a favourable neurological outcome is imprecise because of the small numbers of patients surviving with a good outcome. Conclusions Adrenaline improved long-term survival, but there was no evidence that it significantly improved neurological outcomes. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per quality-adjusted life-year exceeds the threshold of £20,000–30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year usually supported by the NHS. Future work Further research is required to better understand patients’ preferences in relation to survival and neurological outcomes after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest and to aid interpretation of the trial findings from a patient and public perspective. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN73485024 and EudraCT 2014-000792-11. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 25. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Background Each year, approximately 30,000 people have an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) that is treated by UK ambulance services. Across all cases of OHCA, survival to hospital discharge is less than 10%. Acute coronary syndrome (ACS) is a common cause of OHCA. Objectives To explore factors that influence survival in patients who initially survive an OHCA attributable to ACS. Data source Data collected by the Myocardial Ischaemia National Audit Project (MINAP) between 2003 and 2015. Participants Adult patients who had a first OHCA attributable to ACS and who were successfully resuscitated and admitted to hospital. Main outcome measures Hospital mortality, neurological outcome at hospital discharge, and time to all-cause mortality. Methods We undertook a cohort study using data from the MINAP registry. MINAP is a national audit that collects data on patients admitted to English, Welsh and Northern Irish hospitals with myocardial ischaemia. From the data set, we identified patients who had an OHCA. We used imputation to address data missingness across the data set. We analysed data using multilevel logistic regression to identify modifiable and non-modifiable factors that affect outcome. Results Between 2003 and 2015, 1,127,140 patient cases were included in the MINAP data set. Of these, 17,604 OHCA cases met the study inclusion criteria. Overall hospital survival was 71.3%. Across hospitals with at least 60 cases, hospital survival ranged from 34% to 89% (median 71.4%, interquartile range 60.7–76.9%). Modelling, which adjusted for patient and treatment characteristics, could account for only 36.1% of this variability. For the primary outcome, the key modifiable factors associated with reduced mortality were reperfusion treatment [primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI) or thrombolysis] and admission under a cardiologist. Admission to a high-volume cardiac arrest hospital did not influence survival. Sensitivity analyses showed that reperfusion was associated with reduced mortality among patients with a ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), but there was no evidence of a reduction in mortality in patients who did not present with a STEMI. Limitations This was an observational study, such that unmeasured confounders may have influenced study findings. Differences in case identification processes at hospitals may contribute to an ascertainment bias. Conclusions In OHCA patients who have had a cardiac arrest attributable to ACS, there is evidence of variability in survival between hospitals, which cannot be fully explained by variables captured in the MINAP data set. Our findings provide some support for the current practice of transferring resuscitated patients with a STEMI to a hospital that can deliver pPCI. In contrast, it may be reasonable to transfer patients without a STEMI to the nearest appropriate hospital. Future work There is a need for clinical trials to examine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of invasive reperfusion strategies in resuscitated OHCA patients of cardiac cause who have not had a STEMI. Funding The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

Aims\ud To determine patient and health service factors associated with variation in hospital mortality among resuscitated cases of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) with acute coronary syndrome (ACS).\ud \ud Methods\ud In this cohort study, we used the Myocardial Ischaemia National Audit Project database to study outcomes in patients hospitalised with resuscitated OHCA due to ACS between 2003 and 2015 in the United Kingdom. We analysed variation in inter-hospital mortality and used hierarchical multivariable regression models to examine the association between patient and health service factors with hospital mortality.\ud \ud Results\ud We included 17604 patients across 239 hospitals. Overall hospital mortality was 28.7%. In 94 hospitals that contributed at least 60 cases, mortality by hospital ranged from 10.7% to 66.3% (median 28.6%, IQR 23.2% to 39.1%)). Patient and health service factors explained 36.1% of this variation.\ud \ud After adjustment for covariates, factors associated with higher hospital mortality included increasing serum glucose, ST-Elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) diagnosis, and initial admission to a primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI) capable hospital. Hospital OHCA volume was not associated with mortality. The key modifiable factor associated with lower mortality was early reperfusion therapy in STEMI patients.\ud \ud Conclusion\ud There was wide variation in inter-hospital mortality following resuscitated OHCA due to ACS that was only partially explained by patient and health service factors. Hospital OHCA volume and pPCI capability were not associated with lower mortality. Early reperfusion therapy was associated with lower mortality in STEMI patients.

BackgroundMechanical chest compression devices may help to maintain high-quality cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), but little evidence exists for their effectiveness. We evaluated whether or not the introduction of Lund University Cardiopulmonary Assistance System-2 (LUCAS-2; Jolife AB, Lund, Sweden) mechanical CPR into front-line emergency response vehicles would improve survival from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA).ObjectiveEvaluation of the LUCAS-2 device as a routine ambulance service treatment for OHCA.DesignPragmatic, cluster randomised trial including adults with non-traumatic OHCA. Ambulance dispatch staff and those collecting the primary outcome were blind to treatment allocation. Blinding of the ambulance staff who delivered the interventions and reported initial response to treatment was not possible. We also conducted a health economic evaluation and a systematic review of all trials of out-of-hospital mechanical chest compression.SettingFour UK ambulance services (West Midlands, North East England, Wales and South Central), comprising 91 urban and semiurban ambulance stations. Clusters were ambulance service vehicles, which were randomly assigned (approximately 1 : 2) to the LUCAS-2 device or manual CPR.ParticipantsPatients were included if they were in cardiac arrest in the out-of-hospital environment. Exclusions were patients with cardiac arrest as a result of trauma, with known or clinically apparent pregnancy, or aged InterventionsPatients received LUCAS-2 mechanical chest compression or manual chest compressions according to the first trial vehicle to arrive on scene.Main outcome measuresSurvival at 30 days following cardiac arrest; survival without significant neurological impairment [Cerebral Performance Category (CPC) score of 1 or 2].ResultsWe enrolled 4471 eligible patients (1652 assigned to the LUCAS-2 device and 2819 assigned to control) between 15 April 2010 and 10 June 2013. A total of 985 (60%) patients in the LUCAS-2 group received mechanical chest compression and 11 (LimitationsThere was substantial non-compliance in the LUCAS-2 arm. For 272 out of 1652 patients (16.5%), mechanical chest compression was not used for reasons that would not occur in clinical practice. We addressed this issue by using complier average causal effect analyses. We attempted to measure CPR quality during the resuscitation attempts of trial participants, but were unable to do so.ConclusionsThere was no evidence of improvement in 30-day survival with LUCAS-2 compared with manual compressions. Our systematic review of recent randomised trials did not suggest that survival or survival without significant disability may be improved by the use of mechanical chest compression.Future workThe use of mechanical chest compression for in-hospital cardiac arrest, and in specific circumstances (e.g. transport), has not yet been evaluated.TriaI registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN08233942.FundingThis project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full inHealth Technology Assessment; Vol. 21, No. 11. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

BACKGROUND: Mechanical chest compression devices have the potential to help maintain high-quality cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), but despite their increasing use, little evidence exists for their effectiveness. We aimed to study whether the introduction of LUCAS-2 mechanical CPR into front-line emergency response vehicles would improve survival from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. METHODS: The pre-hospital randomised assessment of a mechanical compression device in cardiac arrest (PARAMEDIC) trial was a pragmatic, cluster-randomised open-label trial including adults with non-traumatic, out-of-hospital cardiac arrest from four UK Ambulance Services (West Midlands, North East England, Wales, South Central). 91 urban and semi-urban ambulance stations were selected for participation. Clusters were ambulance service vehicles, which were randomly assigned (1:2) to LUCAS-2 or manual CPR. Patients received LUCAS-2 mechanical chest compression or manual chest compressions according to the first trial vehicle to arrive on scene. The primary outcome was survival at 30 days following cardiac arrest and was analysed by intention to treat. Ambulance dispatch staff and those collecting the primary outcome were masked to treatment allocation. Masking of the ambulance staff who delivered the interventions and reported initial response to treatment was not possible. The study is registered with Current Controlled Trials, number ISRCTN08233942. FINDINGS: We enrolled 4471 eligible patients (1652 assigned to the LUCAS-2 group, 2819 assigned to the control group) between April 15, 2010 and June 10, 2013. 985 (60%) patients in the LUCAS-2 group received mechanical chest compression, and 11 (

This article will describe the access to, and delivery of, emergency medical care in the United Kingdom. We describe how UK Ambulance Services respond to emergency calls and how UK Emergency Departments are configured to provide emergency clinical care. Ambulance technician and paramedic training and clinical skill mix is outlined and UK emergency medicine training and the involvement of doctors in prehospital care is highlighted. We describe the strengths and weaknesses of current Emergency Medical Systems (EMS) in the UK and comment on future areas for improving and developing emergency patient care.