Search

Emergency dispatch centres receive emergency calls and assign resources. Out-of-hospital cardiac arrests (OHCA) can be classified as appropriate (requiring emergent response) or inappropriate (requiring non-emergent response) for resuscitation. We sought to determine system accuracy in emergency medical services (EMS) OHCA response allocation.We analyzed EMS-assessed non-traumatic OHCA records from the British Columbia (BC) Cardiac Arrest registry (January 1, 2019-June 1, 2021), excluding EMS-witnessed cases. In BC the "Medical Priority Dispatch System" is used. We classified EMS dispatch as "emergent" or "non-emergent" and compared to the gold standard of whether EMS personnel decided treatment was appropriate upon scene arrival. We calculated sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values (PPV, NPV), with 95% CI's.Of 15,371 non-traumatic OHCAs, the median age was 65 (inter quartile range 51-78), and 4834 (31%) were women; 7152 (47%) were EMS-treated, of whom 651 (9.1%) survived). Among EMS-treated cases 6923/7152 had an emergent response (sensitivity = 97%, 95% CI 96-97) and among EMS-untreated cases 3951/8219 had a non-emergent response (specificity = 48%, 95% CI, 47 to 49). Among cases with emergent dispatch, 6923/11191 were EMS-treated (PPV = 62%, 95% CI 61-62), and among those with non-emergent dispatch, 3951/4180 were EMS-untreated (NPV = 95%, 95% CI 94-95); 229/4180 (5.5%) with a non-emergent dispatch were treated by EMS.The dispatch system in BC has a high sensitivity and moderate specificity in sending the appropriate responses for OHCAs deemed appropriate for treatment by paramedics. Future research may address strategies to increase system specificity, and decrease the incidence of non-emergent dispatch to EMS-treated cases.

Objectives Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation within CPR (ECPR) may improve survival among patients with refractory out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). We evaluated outcomes after incorporating ECPR into a conventional resuscitation system. Methods We introduced a prehospital-activated ECPR protocol for select refractory OHCAs into one of four metropolitan regions in British Columbia. We prospectively identified ECPR-eligible patients in both the ECPR region and the three other regions to serve as the control group. We compared the proportion with favorable neurological outcomes at hospital discharge (cerebral performance category ≤ 2) and used logistic regression to estimate the association with treatment region. Results The study was terminated prematurely due to changes in hospital protocols and COVID-19. In the ECPR region, 15/58 (25.9%) patients had favourable neurological outcomes owing to conventional resuscitation and 2/58 (3.4%) owing to ECPR, for a total of 17/58 (29.3%). In the control regions, 67/250 (26.8%) patients had a favourable outcome owing to conventional resuscitation, for a between-group difference of 2.5% (95% CI −10 to 15%). We did not detect a statistically significant association between treatment region and outcomes. Conclusion In this prematurely-terminated study of ECPR for refractory OHCA, we did not detect an association between a regional ECPR protocol and neurologically favorable outcomes. However, our data suggests that outcomes owing to conventional resuscitation were similar, with the potential for additional survivors due to ECPR therapies.

Background: Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) commonly presents with nonshockable rhythms (asystole and pulseless electric activity). It is unknown whether antiarrhythmic drugs are safe and effective when nonshockable rhythms evolve to shockable rhythms (ventricular fibrillation/pulseless ventricular tachycardia [VF/VT]) during resuscitation. Methods: Adults with nontraumatic OHCA, vascular access, and VF/VT anytime after ≥1 shock(s) were prospectively randomized, double-blind, to receive amiodarone, lidocaine, or placebo by paramedics. Patients presenting with initial shock-refractory VF/VT were previously reported. The current study was a prespecified analysis in a separate cohort that initially presented with nonshockable OHCA and was randomized on subsequently developing shock-refractory VF/VT. The primary outcome was survival to hospital discharge. Secondary outcomes included discharge functional status and adverse drug-related effects. Results: Of 37 889 patients with OHCA, 3026 with initial VF/VT and 1063 with initial nonshockable-turned-shockable rhythms were treatment-eligible, were randomized, and received their assigned drug. Baseline characteristics among patients with nonshockable-turned-shockable rhythms were balanced across treatment arms, except that recipients of a placebo included fewer men and were less likely to receive bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Active-drug recipients in this cohort required fewer shocks, supplemental doses of their assigned drug, and ancillary antiarrhythmic drugs than recipients of a placebo ( P P =0.24). No significant interaction between treatment assignment and discharge survival occurred with the initiating OHCA rhythm (asystole, pulseless electric activity, or VF/VT). Survival in each of these categories was consistently higher with active drugs, although the trends were not statistically significant. Adjusted absolute differences (95% confidence interval) in survival from nonshockable-turned-shockable arrhythmias with amiodarone versus placebo were 2.3% (−0.3, 4.8), P =0.08, and for lidocaine versus placebo 1.2% (−1.1, 3.6), P =0.30. More than 50% of these survivors were functionally independent or required minimal assistance. Drug-related adverse effects were infrequent. Conclusions: Outcome from nonshockable-turned-shockable OHCA is poor but not invariably fatal. Although not statistically significant, point estimates for survival were greater after amiodarone or lidocaine than placebo, without increased risk of adverse effects or disability and consistent with previously observed favorable trends from treatment of initial shock-refractory VF/VT with these drugs. Together the findings may signal a clinical benefit that invites further investigation. Clinical Trial Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT01401647.

Objective: There is conflicting data in studies investigating the effectiveness of advanced life support (ALS) for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). Within a tiered BLS-ALS system, we sought to determine if the ALS response interval was associated with patient outcomes. Methods: This secondary analysis examined prospectively identified consecutive non-traumatic adult OHCAs from 2006-2016 in British Columbia. We excluded EMS-witnessed arrests and those not treated by ALS. The primary and secondary outcomes were survival and favorable neurological outcomes (mRS ≤3) at hospital discharge. Using logistic regression we estimated the association of ALS response interval (9-1-1 call to ALS arrival) and outcomes, adjusting for treatment year, response interval of the first EMS unit, and other baseline characteristics. We drew spline curves to illustrate this relationship. Results: Of 12,722 included cases, survival was 12%. The median response interval for the first EMS unit was 6.4 minutes (IQR 5.2 - 8.3) and for ALS was 11.8 minutes (IQR 8.7 - 16.5).The adjusted odds of survival and favourable neurological outcome for each additional minute in ALS response interval were 0.98 (95 % CI 0.96-0.99) and 0.98, (95% CI 0.97-0.99) respectively. The spline curve demonstrated an initial decline in survival probability that moderated at approximately 11 minutes. Conclusion: Among ALS-treated subjects within our tiered EMS system, earlier ALS arrival was associated with improved survival and favorable neurological outcomes. The greatest yield of ALS care may be prior to 11 minutes. This may help inform the optimal deployment configuration of prehospital providers.

Objective The “Trial of Continuous (CCC) or Interrupted Chest Compressions (ICC) during Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR)” compared two CPR strategies for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). Although results were neutral, there was suggestion of benefit for ICC. However, nearly 50% of study patients had a protocol violation; regional variations may have played a role in protocol adherence and outcomes. We analyzed our British Colombia (BC) cohort to decide whether a protocol change from CCC to ICC was justified. Methods This was a post-hoc analysis of BC-enrolled study patients. The primary between-group comparison was favorable neurological outcome (modified Rankin scale ≤ 3) using intention-to-treat. Secondary analyses compared those treated per-protocol (adjusted) and the top compliant clusters (unadjusted). We classified protocol violations using a structured algorithm. We used logistic regression and computed the difference in probabilities using the marginal standardization method with bootstrapping to calculate confidence intervals. Results There were 3769 patients included, with a median age of 69 years (IQR: 56–80). There were protocol violations in 3.2% of those in the CCC group and 27% of those in the ICC group. In patients randomized to CCC or ICC, 11.2% and 10.8% (risk difference 0.42%; 95% CI -1.58, 2.41) had favorable neurological outcomes, respectively. In the per-protocol and top compliant clusters comparisons, risk differences were 0.25% (95% CI -1.70, 2.25) and 2.95% (95% CI -0.68, 6.58). Conclusion Our comparisons suggest that CCC may be the preferred strategy in our region and is likely not resulting in worse outcomes. Based on the original study and our local analysis, we found no compelling reasons to change our local strategy from CCC to ICC.

Objective Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation within CPR (ECPR) may improve survival for refractory out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). We developed a prehospital, emergency department (ED), and hospital-based clinical and educational protocol to improve the key variable of time-to-ECPR (TTE). Methods In a single urban health region we involved key prehospital, clinical, and administrative stakeholders over a 2-year period, to develop a regional ECPR program with destination to a single urban tertiary care hospital. We developed clear and reproducible inclusion criteria and processes, including measures of program efficiency. We conducted seminars and teaching modules to paramedics and hospital-based clinicians including monthly simulator sessions, and performed detailed reviews of each treated case in the form of report cards. In this before-and-after study we compared patients with ECPR attempted prior to, and after, protocol implementation. The primary outcome was TTE, defined as the time of initial professional CPR to establishment of extracorporeal circulation. We compared the median TTE for patients in the two groups using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. Results Four patients were identified prior to the protocol and managed in an ad hoc basis; for nine patients the protocol was utilized. Overall favourable neurological outcomes among ECPR-treated patients were 27%. The median TTE was 136 minutes (IQR 98 - 196) in the pre-protocol group, and 60 minutes (IQR 49 - 81) minutes in the protocol group (p=0.0165). Conclusion An organized clinical and educational protocol to initiate ECPR for patients with OHCA is feasible and significantly reduces the key benchmark of time-to-ECPR flows.

Measures of chest compression fraction (CCF), compression rate, compression depth and pre-shock pause have all been independently associated with improved outcomes from out-of-hospital (OHCA) cardiac arrest. However, it is unknown whether compliance with American Heart Association (AHA) guidelines incorporating all the aforementioned metrics, is associated with improved survival from OHCA.We performed a secondary analysis of prospectively collected data from the Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium Epistry-Cardiac Arrest database. As per the 2015 American Heart Association (AHA) guidelines, guideline compliant cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) was defined as CCF0.8, chest compression rate 100-120/minute, chest compression depth 50-60mm, and pre-shock pause10s. Multivariable logistic regression models controlling for Utstein variables were used to assess the relationship between global guideline compliance and survival to hospital discharge and neurologically intact survival with MRS ≤3. Due to potential confounding between CPR quality metrics and cases that achieved early ROSC, we performed an a priori subgroup analysis restricted to patients who obtained ROSC after ≥10min of EMS resuscitation.After allowing for study exclusions, 19,568 defibrillator records were collected over a 4-year period ending in June 2015. For all reported models, the reference standard included all cases who did not meet all CPR quality benchmarks. For the primary model (CCF, rate, depth), there was no significant difference in survival for resuscitations that met all CPR quality benchmarks (guideline compliant) compared to the reference standard (OR 1.26; 95% CI: 0.80, 1.97). When the dataset was restricted to patients obtaining ROSC after ≥10min of EMS resuscitation (n=4,158), survival was significantly higher for those resuscitations that were guideline compliant (OR 2.17; 95% CI: 1.11, 4.27) compared to the reference standard. Similar findings were obtained for neurologically intact survival with MRS ≤3 (OR 3.03; 95% CI: 1.12, 8.20).In this observational study, compliance with AHA guidelines for CPR quality was not associated with improved outcomes from OHCA. Conversely, when restricting the cohort to those with late ROSC, compliance with guidelines was associated with improved clinical outcomes. Strategies to improve overall guideline compliance may have a significant impact on outcomes from OHCA.

Background: Many patients with witnessed out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) will not have CPR attempted until emergency medical services (EMS) personnel arrive. The potential for favourable outcomes in patients with increasing no-flow durations is unclear. While some extra-corporeal CPR programs have excluded patients without bystander CPR, others have treated these patients provided short durations to EMS arrival. We sought to describe the outcomes of patients with increasing no-flow durations to determine the potential viability of these patients. Methods: This study examined consecutive non-traumatic OHCA’s collected by a prospective registry in British Columbia (2007 and 2011). We included adult patients with bystander-witnessed OHCA but no attempt at bystander chest compressions. The primary variable of interest was the duration from the bystander 9-1-1 call to the time of CPR commencement by EMS. The primary endpoint was survival at hospital discharge. Multivariable logistic regression, with adjustment for sex, age, public location of arrest, and initial shockable rhythm, was used to assess the association of time to CPR and survival to hospital discharge. Results: Of 6571 EMS-treated OHCA’s, 1062 were included. The median age was 73 (IQR 58-82), 69% were male, and 35% had initial shockable rhythms. Overall survival was 13%. The median time to CPR commencement was 8.5 minutes (IQR 6.9 - 10.5). Time to CPR was independently associated with survival to hospital discharge (adjusted OR 0.85 per minute increase; 95% CI 0.78-0.92). Among survivors, the 90th percentile of time from 9-1-1 call to CPR was 10.3 minutes. Conclusion: In adult OHCA patients, no-flow durations were negatively correlated with outcome, however survival was observed with prolonged durations without CPR extending to 16 minutes. Patients with witnessed OHCA and no bystander CPR include survivors and aggressive resuscitation strategies are warranted.

During cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) in patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, the interruption of manual chest compressions for rescue breathing reduces blood flow and possibly survival. We assessed whether outcomes after continuous compressions with positive-pressure ventilation differed from those after compressions that were interrupted for ventilations at a ratio of 30 compressions to two ventilations.This cluster-randomized trial with crossover included 114 emergency medical service (EMS) agencies. Adults with non-trauma-related cardiac arrest who were treated by EMS providers received continuous chest compressions (intervention group) or interrupted chest compressions (control group). The primary outcome was the rate of survival to hospital discharge. Secondary outcomes included the modified Rankin scale score (on a scale from 0 to 6, with a score of ≤3 indicating favorable neurologic function). CPR process was measured to assess compliance.Of 23,711 patients included in the primary analysis, 12,653 were assigned to the intervention group and 11,058 to the control group. A total of 1129 of 12,613 patients with available data (9.0%) in the intervention group and 1072 of 11,035 with available data (9.7%) in the control group survived until discharge (difference, -0.7 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -1.5 to 0.1; P=0.07); 7.0% of the patients in the intervention group and 7.7% of those in the control group survived with favorable neurologic function at discharge (difference, -0.6 percentage points; 95% CI, -1.4 to 0.1, P=0.09). Hospital-free survival was significantly shorter in the intervention group than in the control group (mean difference, -0.2 days; 95% CI, -0.3 to -0.1; P=0.004).In patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, continuous chest compressions during CPR performed by EMS providers did not result in significantly higher rates of survival or favorable neurologic function than did interrupted chest compressions. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and others; ROC CCC ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01372748.).

The Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium is conducting a randomized trial comparing survival with hospital discharge after continuous chest compressions without interruption for ventilation versus currently recommended American Heart Association cardiopulmonary resuscitation with interrupted chest compressions in adult patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest without obvious trauma or respiratory cause. Emergency medical services perform study cardiopulmonary resuscitation for 3 intervals of manual chest compressions (each ~2 minutes) or until restoration of spontaneous circulation. Patients randomized to the continuous chest compression intervention receive 200 chest compressions with positive pressure ventilations at a rate of 10/min without interruption in compressions. Those randomized to the interrupted chest compression study arm receive chest compressions interrupted for positive pressure ventilations at a compression:ventilation ratio of 30:2. In either group, each interval of compressions is followed by rhythm analysis and defibrillation as required. Insertion of an advanced airway is deferred for the first ≥6 minutes to reduce interruptions in either study arm. The study uses a cluster randomized design with every-6-month crossovers. The primary outcome is survival to hospital discharge. Secondary outcomes are neurologically intact survival and adverse events. A maximum of 23,600 patients (11,800 per group) enrolled during the post-run-in phase of the study will provide ≥90% power to detect a relative change of 16% in the rate of survival to discharge, 8.1% to 9.4% with overall significance level of 0.05. If this trial demonstrates improved survival with either strategy, >3,000 premature deaths from cardiac arrest would be averted annually.