Search

OBJECTIVE: Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) appears to be superior to in-hospital fibrinolysis for most patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). However, few hospitals have PCI capability. The optimal prehospital strategy for facilitating rapid coronary reperfusion in STEMI patients is unclear. We sought to determine whether direct transport of adult STEMI patients by emergency medical services to primary PCI centres improves 30-day all-cause mortality when compared with a strategy of transportation to the closest hospital. METHODS: We systematically searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane 'CENTRAL' database (1980-July 2007) and several other electronic databases. Two authors independently as sessed citations for relevance. Two authors independently abstracted data from included studies. We included studies that, 1) transported patients directly to a PCI-capable centre for primary PCI, 2) had a control group that was transported to the closest hospital and 3) reported outcomes of treatment time intervals, all-cause mortality, reinfarction rate, stroke rate or the frequency of cardiogenic shock. We used a random effects model to provide pooled estimates of relative risk (RR) when data allowed. RESULTS: We identified 2264 citations with the search. Five studies, including 980 STEMI patients, met inclusion criteria, and were clinically heterogeneous and of variable quality. Most studies were European (3/5) and involved physician out-of-hospital care providers. There was a trend toward increased survival with direct transport to primary PCI but this was not statistically significant (RR 0.51, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.24-1.10). One study reported nonsignificant reductions in reinfarction (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.11-1.60) and stroke (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01-8.06) with direct transport for primary PCI. CONCLUSION: There is insufficient evidence to support the effectiveness of direct transport of patients with STEMI for primary PCI when compared with transportation to the closest hospital. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

OBJECTIVE: We assessed the self-reported theoretical and practical preparedness training of Canadian emergency medical services (EMS) providers in chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear (CBRN) events. METHODS: We designed an online survey to address the theoretical and practical CBRN training level of prehospital providers. Emergency medical services staff in British Columbia and Ontario were invited to participate. RESULTS: Of the 1028 respondents, 75% were male, and the largest demographic groups were front-line personnel with more than 15 years of experience. Only 63% of respondents indicated they had received either theoretical or practical training to work in a contaminated environment, leaving 37% who indicated they had received neither type of training. Of those that had received any training, 61% indicated they had received 'hands-on' or practical training and 82% indicated they had received some training in identification of a possibly contaminated scene. Only 42% had received training for symptoms of nerve agents, 37% had received training for symptoms of blister agents and 46% had received training for symptoms of asphyxiants. Thirty-two percent had received training for the treatment of patients exposed to nerve agents, and 30% had received training for the treatment of patients exposed to blister agents. Only 31% of all respondents had received training for detecting radiation. CONCLUSION: CBRN events involve unique hazards and require specific education and training for EMS providers. A large proportion of Canadian EMS providers report not having received the training to identify and work in contaminated environments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This is the eighth annual summary of the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations; a more comprehensive review was done in 2020. This latest summary addresses the most recent published resuscitation evidence reviewed by the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation task force science experts. Members from 6 International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation task forces have assessed, discussed, and debated the quality of the evidence, using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation criteria, and their statements include consensus treatment recommendations. Insights into the deliberations of the task forces are provided in the Justification and Evidence-to-Decision Framework Highlights sections. In addition, the task forces list priority knowledge gaps for further research.

Background: Timely diagnosis and treatment for ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) requires a coordinated response from multiple providers. Rapid intervention is key to reducing mortality and morbidity. Activation of the cardiac catheterization laboratory may occur through verbal communication and may also involve the secure sharing of electrocardiographic images between frontline health care providers and interventional cardiologists. To improve this response, we developed a quick, easy-to-use, privacy-compliant smartphone app, that is SMART AMI-ACS (Strategic Management of Acute Reperfusion and Therapies in Acute Myocardial Infarction Acute Coronary Syndromes), for real-time verbal communication and sharing of electrocardiographic images among health care providers in Ontario, Canada. The app further provides information about diagnosis, management, and risk calculators for patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome., Objective: This study aims to integrate the app into workflow processes to improve communication for STEMI activation, resulting in decreased treatment times, improved patient outcomes, and reduced unnecessary catheterization laboratory activation and transfer., Methods: Implementation of the app will be guided by the Reach, Effectiveness, Acceptability, Implementation, and Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework to measure impact. The study will use quantitative registry data already being collected through the SMART AMI project (STEMI registry), the use of the SMART AMI app, and quantitative and qualitative survey data from physicians. Survey questions will be based on the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Descriptive quantitative analysis and thematic qualitative analysis of survey results will be conducted. Continuous variables will be described using either mean and SD or median and IQR values at pre- and postintervention periods by the study sites. Categorical variables, such as false activation, will be described as frequencies (percentages). For each outcome, an interrupted time series regression model will be fitted to evaluate the impact of the app., Results: The primary outcomes of this study include the usability, acceptability, and functionality of the app for physicians. This will be measured using electronic surveys to identify barriers and facilitators to app use. Other key outcomes will measure the implementation of the app by reviewing the timing-of-care intervals, false "avoidable" catheterization laboratory activation rates, and uptake and use of the app by physicians. Prospective evaluation will be conducted between April 1, 2022, and March 31, 2023. However, for the timing- and accuracy-of-care outcomes, registry data will be compared from January 1, 2019, to March 31, 2023. Data analysis is expected to be completed in Fall 2024, with the completion of a paper for publication anticipated by the end of 2024., Conclusions: Smartphone technology is well integrated into clinical practice and widely accessible. The proposed solution being tested is secure and leverages the accessibility of smartphones. Emergency medicine physicians can use this app to quickly, securely, and accurately transmit information ensuring faster and more appropriate decision-making for STEMI activation., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05290389; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05290389., International Registered Report Identifier (irrid): DERR1-10.2196/55506., (©Hassan Mir, Katelyn J Cullen, Karen Mosleh, Rafi Setrak, Sanjit Jolly, Michael Tsang, Gregory Rutledge, Quazi Ibrahim, Michelle Welsford, Mathew Mercuri, JD Schwalm, Madhu K Natarajan. Originally published in JMIR Research Protocols (https://www.researchprotocols.org), 06.09.2024.)

The Utstein Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest Resuscitation Registry Template, introduced in 1991 and updated in 2004 and 2015, standardizes data collection to enable research, evaluation, and comparisons of systems of care. The impetus for the current update stemmed from significant advances in the field and insights from registry development and regional comparisons. This 2024 update involved representatives of the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation and used a modified Delphi process. Every 2015 Utstein data element was reviewed for relevance, priority (core or supplemental), and improvement. New variables were proposed and refined. All changes were voted on for inclusion. The 2015 domains-system, dispatch, patient, process, and outcomes-were retained. Further clarity is provided for the definitions of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest attended resuscitation and attempted resuscitation. Changes reflect advancements in dispatch, early response systems, and resuscitation care, as well as the importance of prehospital outcomes. Time intervals such as emergency medical service response time now emphasize precise reporting of the times used. New flowcharts aid the reporting of system effectiveness for patients with an attempted resuscitation and system efficacy for the Utstein comparator group. Recognizing the varying capacities of emergency systems globally, the writing group provided a minimal dataset for settings with developing emergency medical systems. Supplementary variables are considered useful for research purposes. These revisions aim to elevate data collection and reporting transparency by registries and researchers and to advance international comparisons and collaborations. The overarching objective remains the improvement of outcomes for patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.

The Utstein Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest Resuscitation Registry Template, introduced in 1991 and updated in 2004 and 2015, standardizes data collection to enable research, evaluation, and comparisons of systems of care. The impetus for the current update stemmed from significant advances in the field and insights from registry development and regional comparisons. This 2024 update involved representatives of the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation and used a modified Delphi process. Every 2015 Utstein data element was reviewed for relevance, priority (core or supplemental), and improvement. New variables were proposed and refined. All changes were voted on for inclusion. The 2015 domains-system, dispatch, patient, process, and outcomes-were retained. Further clarity is provided for the definitions of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest attended resuscitation and attempted resuscitation. Changes reflect advancements in dispatch, early response systems, and resuscitation care, as well as the importance of prehospital outcomes. Time intervals such as emergency medical service response time now emphasize precise reporting of the times used. New flowcharts aid the reporting of system effectiveness for patients with an attempted resuscitation and system efficacy for the Utstein comparator group. Recognizing the varying capacities of emergency systems globally, the writing group provided a minimal dataset for settings with developing emergency medical systems. Supplementary variables are considered useful for research purposes. These revisions aim to elevate data collection and reporting transparency by registries and researchers and to advance international comparisons and collaborations. The overarching objective remains the improvement of outcomes for patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest., (Copyright © 2024 European Resuscitation Council, American Heart Association Inc., International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: We aimed to evaluate the comparative effectiveness and safety of various i.v. pharmacologic agents used for procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) in the emergency department (ED) and ICU. We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis to enable direct and indirect comparisons between available medications., Methods: We searched Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane, and PubMed from inception to 2 March 2023 for RCTs comparing two or more procedural sedation and analgesia medications in all patients (adults and children >30 days of age) requiring emergent procedures in the ED or ICU. We focused on the outcomes of sedation recovery time, patient satisfaction, and adverse events (AEs). We performed frequentist random-effects model network meta-analysis and used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to rate certainty in estimates., Results: We included 82 RCTs (8105 patients, 78 conducted in the ED and four in the ICU) of which 52 studies included adults, 23 included children, and seven included both. Compared with midazolam-opioids, recovery time was shorter with propofol (mean difference 16.3 min, 95% confidence interval [CI] 8.4-24.3 fewer minutes; high certainty), and patient satisfaction was better with ketamine-propofol (mean difference 1.5 points, 95% CI 0.3-2.6 points, high certainty). Regarding AEs, compared with midazolam-opioids, respiratory AEs were less frequent with ketamine (relative risk [RR] 0.55, 95% CI 0.32-0.96; high certainty), gastrointestinal AEs were more common with ketamine-midazolam (RR 3.08, 95% CI 1.15-8.27; high certainty), and neurological AEs were more common with ketamine-propofol (RR 3.68, 95% CI 1.08-12.53; high certainty)., Conclusion: When considering procedural sedation and analgesia in the ED and ICU, compared with midazolam-opioids, sedation recovery time is shorter with propofol, patient satisfaction is better with ketamine-propofol, and respiratory adverse events are less common with ketamine., (Copyright © 2023 British Journal of Anaesthesia. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: Given the uncertainty regarding the optimal approach for airway management for adult patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA), we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the use of supraglottic airways (SGAs) with tracheal intubation for initial airway management in OHCA., Data Sources: We searched MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, as well as unpublished sources, from inception to February 7, 2023., Study Selection: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of adult OHCA patients randomized to SGA compared with tracheal intubation for initial prehospital airway management., Data Extraction: Reviewers screened abstracts, full texts, and extracted data independently and in duplicate. We pooled data using a random-effects model. We used the modified Cochrane risk of bias 2 tool and assessed certainty of evidence using the Grading Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. We preregistered the protocol on PROSPERO (CRD42022342935)., Data Synthesis: We included four RCTs ( n = 13,412 patients). Compared with tracheal intubation , SGA use probably increases return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) (relative risk [RR] 1.09; 95% CI, 1.02-1.15; moderate certainty) and leads to a faster time to airway placement (mean difference 2.5 min less; 95% CI, 1.6-3.4 min less; high certainty). SGA use may have no effect on survival at longest follow-up (RR 1.06; 95% CI, 0.84-1.34; low certainty), has an uncertain effect on survival with good functional outcome (RR 1.11; 95% CI, 0.82-1.50; very low certainty), and may have no effect on risk of aspiration (RR 1.04; 95% CI, 0.94 to 1.16; low certainty)., Conclusions: In adult patients with OHCA, compared with tracheal intubation, the use of SGA for initial airway management probably leads to more ROSC, and faster time to airway placement, but may have no effect on longer-term survival outcomes or aspiration events., Competing Interests: Dr. Sharif holds a McMaster University Department of Medicine Internal Career Research Award. Dr. Nichol’s institution received funding from the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and Abiomed Inc.; he received funding from OLL Medical Corp., Vapotherm Inc., ZOLL Circulation Inc., CPR Therapeutics Inc., Heartbeam Inc., Invero Health LLC, Kestra Medical Technologies Inc., and Orixha Inc. Dr. Nolan disclosed he is Editor-in-Chief Resuscitation of Elsevier Journal. The remaining authors have disclosed that they do not have any potential conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 by the Society of Critical Care Medicine and Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All Rights Reserved.)

Aim: We sought to describe the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the care provided by Canadian emergency medical system (EMS) clinicians to patients suffering out of hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA), and whether any observed changes persisted beyond the initial phase of the pandemic., Methods: We analysed cases of adult, non-traumatic, OHCA from the Canadian Resuscitation Outcome Consortium (CanROC) registry who were treated between January 27th, 2018, and December 31st, 2021. We used adjusted regression models and interrupted time series analysis to examine the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic (January 27th, 2020 - December 31st, 2021)on the care provided to patients with OHCA by EMS clinicians., Results: There were 12,947 cases of OHCA recorded in the CanROC registry in the pre-COVID-19 period and 17,488 during the COVID-19 period. We observed a reduction in the cumulative number of defibrillations provided by EMS (aRR 0.91, 95% CI 0.89 - 0.93, p < 0.01), a reduction in the odds of attempts at intubation (aOR 0.33, 95% CI 0.31 - 0.34, p < 0.01), higher rates of supraglottic airway use (aOR 1.23, 95% CI 1.16-1.30, p < 0.01), a reduction in vascular access (aOR for intravenous access 0.84, 95% CI 0.79 - 0.89, p < 0.01; aOR for intraosseous access 0.89, 95% CI 0.82 - 0.96, p < 0.01), a reduction in the odds of epinephrine administration (aOR 0.89, 95% CI 0.85 - 0.94, p < 0.01), and higher odds of resuscitation termination on scene (aOR 1.38, 95% CI 1.31 - 1.46, p < 0.01). Delays to initiation of chest compressions (2 min. vs. 3 min., p < 0.01), intubation (16 min. vs. 19 min., p = 0.01), and epinephrine administration (11 min. vs. 13 min., p < 0.01) were observed, whilst supraglottic airways were inserted earlier (11 min. vs. 10 min., p < 0.01)., Conclusion: The COVID-19 pandemic was associated with substantial changes in EMS management of OHCA. EMS leaders should consider these findings to optimise current OHCA management and prepare for future pandemics., 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 © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: The accuracy of self-reported vaccination status is important to guide real-world vaccine effectiveness studies and policy making in jurisdictions where access to electronic vaccine registries is restricted., Objective: This study aimed to determine the accuracy of self-reported vaccination status and reliability of the self-reported number of doses, brand, and time of vaccine administration., Methods: This diagnostic accuracy study was completed by the Canadian COVID-19 Emergency Department Rapid Response Network. We enrolled consecutive patients presenting to 4 emergency departments (EDs) in Québec between March 24, 2020, and December 25, 2021. We included adult patients who were able to consent, could speak English or French, and had a proven COVID-19 infection. We compared the self-reported vaccination status of the patients with their vaccination status in the electronic Québec Vaccination Registry. Our primary outcome was the accuracy of the self-reported vaccination status (index test) ascertained during telephone follow-up compared with the Québec Vaccination Registry (reference standard). The accuracy was calculated by dividing all correctly self-reported vaccinated and unvaccinated participants by the sum of all correctly and incorrectly self-reported vaccinated and unvaccinated participants. We also reported interrater agreement with the reference standard as measured by unweighted Cohen κ for self-reported vaccination status at telephone follow-up and at the time of their index ED visit, number of vaccine doses, and brand., Results: During the study period, we included 1361 participants. At the time of the follow-up interview, 932 participants reported at least 1 dose of a COVID-19 vaccine. The accuracy of the self-reported vaccination status was 96% (95% CI 95%-97%). Cohen κ for self-reported vaccination status at phone follow-up was 0.91 (95% CI 0.89-0.93) and 0.85 (95% CI 0.77-0.92) at the time of their index ED visit. Cohen κ was 0.89 (95% CI 0.87-0.91) for the number of doses, 0.80 (95% CI 0.75-0.84) for the brand of the first dose, 0.76 (95% CI 0.70-0.83) for the brand of the second dose, and 0.59 (95% CI 0.34-0.83) for the brand of the third dose., Conclusions: We reported a high accuracy of self-reported vaccination status for adult patients without cognitive disorders who can express themselves in English or French. Researchers can use self-reported COVID-19 vaccination data on the number of doses received, vaccine brand name, and timing of vaccination to guide future research with patients who are capable of self-reporting their vaccination data. However, access to official electronic vaccine registries is still needed to determine the vaccination status in certain susceptible populations where self-reported vaccination data remain missing or impossible to obtain., Trial Registration: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT04702945; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04702945., (©Patrick M Archambault, Rhonda J Rosychuk, Martyne Audet, Rajan Bola, Shabnam Vatanpour, Steven C Brooks, Raoul Daoust, Gregory Clark, Lars Grant, Samuel Vaillancourt, Michelle Welsford, Laurie J Morrison, Corinne M Hohl, Canadian COVID-19 Emergency Department Rapid Response Network (CCEDRRN) investigators, Network of Canadian Emergency Researchers, Canadian Critical Care Trials Group. Originally published in JMIR Public Health and Surveillance (https://publichealth.jmir.org), 16.06.2023.)

Background: Jellyfish envenomation is common in many coastal regions and varies in severity depending upon the species. Stings cause a variety of symptoms and signs including pain, dermatological reactions, and, in some species, Irukandji syndrome (which may include abdominal/back/chest pain, tachycardia, hypertension, cardiac phenomena, and, rarely, death). Many treatments have been suggested for these symptoms, but their effectiveness is unclear. This is an update of a Cochrane Review last published in 2013., Objectives: To determine the benefits and harms associated with the use of any intervention, in both adults and children, for the treatment of jellyfish stings, as assessed by randomised and quasi-randomised trials., Search Methods: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science up to 27 October 2022. We searched clinical trials registers and the grey literature, and conducted forward-citation searching of relevant articles.  SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs of any intervention given to treat stings from any species of jellyfish stings. Interventions were compared to another active intervention, placebo, or no treatment. If co-interventions were used, we included the study only if the co-intervention was used in each group.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.  MAIN RESULTS: We included nine studies (six RCTs and three quasi-RCTs) involving a total of 574 participants. We found one ongoing study. Participants were either stung accidentally, or were healthy volunteers exposed to stings in a laboratory setting. Type of jellyfish could not be confirmed in beach settings and was determined by investigators using participant and local information. We categorised interventions into comparison groups: hot versus cold applications; topical applications. A third comparison of parenteral administration included no relevant outcome data: a single study (39 participants) evaluated intravenous magnesium sulfate after stings from jellyfish that cause Irukandji syndrome (Carukia). No studies assessed a fourth comparison group of pressure immobilisation bandages.  We downgraded the certainty of the evidence due to very serious risk of bias, serious and very serious imprecision, and serious inconsistency in some results.  Application of heat versus application of cold Four studies involved accidental stings treated on the beach or in hospital. Jellyfish were described as bluebottles (Physalia; location: Australia), and box jellyfish that do not cause Irukandji syndrome (Hawaiian box jellyfish (Carybdea alata) and major box jellyfish (Chironex fleckeri, location: Australia)). Treatments were applied with hot packs or hot water (showers, baths, buckets, or hoses), or ice packs or cold packs.  The evidence for all outcomes was of very low certainty, thus we are unsure whether heat compared to cold leads to at least a clinically significant reduction in pain within six hours of stings from Physalia (risk ratio (RR) 2.25, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.42 to 3.56; 2 studies, 142 participants) or Carybdea alata and Chironex fleckeri (RR 1.66, 95% CI 0.56 to 4.94; 2 studies, 71 participants). We are unsure whether there is a difference in adverse events due to treatment (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.05 to 5.19; 2 studies, 142 participants); these were minor adverse events reported for Physalia stings. We are also unsure whether either treatment leads to a clinically significant reduction in pain in the first hour (Physalia: RR 2.66, 95% CI 1.71 to 4.15; 1 study, 88 participants; Carybdea alata and Chironex fleckeri: RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.89; 1 study, 42 participants) or cessation of pain at the end of treatment (Physalia: RR 1.63, 95% CI 0.81 to 3.27; 1 study, 54 participants; Carybdea alata and Chironex fleckeri: RR 3.54, 95% CI 0.82 to 15.31; 1 study, 29 participants). Evidence for retreatment with the same intervention was only available for Physalia, with similar uncertain findings (RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.01 to 3.90; 1 study, 96 participants), as was the case for retreatment with the alternative hot or cold application after Physalia (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.82; 1 study, 54 participants) and Chironex fleckeri stings (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.02 to 11.17; 1 study, 42 participants). Evidence for dermatological signs (itchiness or rash) was available only at 24 hours for Physalia stings (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.65; 2 studies, 98 participants).  Topical applications One study (62 participants) included accidental stings from Hawaiian box jellyfish (Carybdea alata) treated on the beach with fresh water, seawater, Sting Aid (a commercial product), or Adolph's (papain) meat tenderiser. In another study, healthy volunteers (97 participants) were stung with an Indonesian sea nettle (Chrysaora chinensis from Malaysia) in a laboratory setting and treated with isopropyl alcohol, ammonia, heated water, acetic acid, or sodium bicarbonate. Two other eligible studies (Carybdea alata and Physalia stings) did not measure the outcomes of this review.  The evidence for all outcomes was of very low certainty, thus we could not be certain whether or not topical applications provided at least a clinically significant reduction in pain (1 study, 62 participants with Carybdea alata stings, reported only as cessation of pain). For adverse events due to treatment, one study (Chrysaora chinensis stings) withdrew ammonia as a treatment following a first-degree burn in one participant. No studies evaluated clinically significant reduction in pain, retreatment with the same or the alternative treatment, or dermatological signs., Authors' Conclusions: Few studies contributed data to this review, and those that did contribute varied in types of treatment, settings, and range of jellyfish species. We are unsure of the effectiveness of any of the treatments evaluated in this review given the very low certainty of all the evidence. This updated review includes two new studies (with 139 additional participants). The findings are consistent with the previous review., (Copyright © 2023 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Objective: Intubation practices changed during the COVID-19 pandemic to protect healthcare workers from transmission of disease. Our objectives were to describe intubation characteristics and outcomes for patients tested for SARS CoV-2 infection. We compared outcomes between patients testing SARS COV-2 positive with those testing negative., Methods: We conducted a health records review using the Canadian COVID-19 Emergency Department Rapid Response Network (CCEDRRN) registry. We included consecutive eligible patients who presented to one of 47 EDs across Canada between March 1, 2020 and June 20, 2021, were tested for SARS-CoV-2 and intubated in the ED. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients experiencing a post-intubation adverse event during the ED stay. Secondary outcomes included first-pass success, intubation practices, and hospital mortality. We used descriptive statistics to summarize variables with subgroup differences examined using t tests, z tests, or chi-squared tests where appropriate with 95% CIs., Results: Of 1720 patients with suspected COVID-19 who were intubated in the ED during the study period, 337 (19.6%) tested SARS-CoV-2 positive and 1383 (80.4%) SARS-CoV-2 negative. SARS-CoV-2 positive patients presented to hospital with lower oxygen levels than SARS-CoV-2 negative patients (mean pulse oximeter SaO2 86 vs 94%, p < 0.001). In total, 8.5% of patients experienced an adverse event post-intubation. More patients in the SARS-CoV-2 positive subgroup experienced post-intubation hypoxemia (4.5 vs 2.2%, p = 0.019). In-hospital mortality was greater for patients who experienced intubation-related adverse events (43.2 vs 33.2%, p = 0.018). There was no significant difference in adverse event-associated mortality by SARS-CoV-2 status. First-pass success was achieved in 92.4% of all intubations, with no difference by SARS-CoV-2 status., Conclusions: During the COVID-19 pandemic, we observed a low risk of adverse events associated with intubation, even though hypoxemia was common in patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2. We observed high rates of first-pass success and low rates of inability to intubate. The limited number of adverse events precluded multivariate adjustments. Study findings should reassure emergency medicine practitioners that system modifications made to intubation processes in response to the COVID-19 pandemic do not appear to be associated with worse outcomes compared to pre-COVID-19 practices., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

The optimal timing of coronary angiography remains unclear following out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) without ST elevation on electrocardiogram. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of early angiography versus delayed angiography following OHCA without ST elevation., Data Sources: The databases MEDLINE, PubMed EMBASE, and CINHAL, as well as unpublished sources from inception to March 9, 2022., Study Selection: A systematic search was performed for randomized controlled trials of adult patients after OHCA without ST elevation who were randomized to early as compared to delayed angiography., Data Extraction: Reviewers screened and abstracted data independently and in duplicate. The certainty of evidence was assessed for each outcome using the Grading Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. The protocol was preregistered (CRD 42021292228)., Data Synthesis: Six trials were included ( n = 1,590 patients). Early angiography probably has no effect on mortality (relative risk [RR] 1.04; 95% CI 0.94-1.15; moderate certainty) and may have no effect on survival with good neurologic outcome (RR 0.97; 95% CI 0.87-1.07; low certainty) or ICU length of stay (LOS) (mean difference 0.41 days fewer; 95% CI -1.3 to 0.5 d; low certainty). Early angiography has an uncertain effect on adverse events., Conclusions: In OHCA patients without ST elevation, early angiography probably has no effect on mortality and may have no effect on survival with good neurologic outcome and ICU LOS. Early angiography has an uncertain effect on adverse events., Competing Interests: Drs. Sharif and Belley-Côté hold a McMaster University Department of Medicine Internal Career Research Award. Dr. Belley-Côté holds a National New Investigator award from the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada. The remaining authors have disclosed that they do not have any potential conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the Society of Critical Care Medicine.)

This is the sixth annual summary of the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations. This summary addresses the most recently published resuscitation evidence reviewed by International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation Task Force science experts. Topics covered by systematic reviews include cardiopulmonary resuscitation during transport; approach to resuscitation after drowning; passive ventilation; minimizing pauses during cardiopulmonary resuscitation; temperature management after cardiac arrest; use of diagnostic point-of-care ultrasound during cardiac arrest; use of vasopressin and corticosteroids during cardiac arrest; coronary angiography after cardiac arrest; public-access defibrillation devices for children; pediatric early warning systems; maintaining normal temperature immediately after birth; suctioning of amniotic fluid at birth; tactile stimulation for resuscitation immediately after birth; use of continuous positive airway pressure for respiratory distress at term birth; respiratory and heart rate monitoring in the delivery room; supraglottic airway use in neonates; prearrest prediction of in-hospital cardiac arrest mortality; basic life support training for likely rescuers of high-risk populations; effect of resuscitation team training; blended learning for life support training; training and recertification for resuscitation instructors; and recovery position for maintenance of breathing and prevention of cardiac arrest. Members from 6 task forces have assessed, discussed, and debated the quality of the evidence using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation criteria and generated consensus treatment recommendations. Insights into the deliberations of the task forces are provided in the Justification and Evidence-to-Decision Framework Highlights sections, and priority knowledge gaps for future research are listed., (Copyright © 2023 by the American Academy of Pediatrics.)

Introduction: As part of the COVID-19 pandemic response, the Ontario Ministry of Health funded a virtual care pilot program intended to support emergency department (ED) diversion of patients with low acuity complaints and reduce the need for face-to-face contact. The objective was to describe the demographic characteristics, outcomes and experience of patients using the provincial pilot program., Methods: This was a prospective cohort study of patients using virtual care services provided by 14 ED-led pilot sites from December 2020 to September 2021. Patients who completed a virtual visit were invited by email to complete a standardized, 25-item online survey, which included questions related to satisfaction and patient-reported outcome measures., Results: There were 22,278 virtual visits. When patients were asked why they contacted virtual urgent care, of the 82.7% patients who had a primary care provider, 31.0% said they could not make a timely appointment with their family physician. Rash, fever, abdominal pain, and COVID-19 vaccine queries represented 30% of the presenting complaints. Of 19,613 patients with a known disposition, 12,910 (65.8%) were discharged home and 3,179 (16.2%) were referred to the ED. Of the 2,177 survey responses, 94% rated their overall experience as 8/10 or greater. More than 80% said they had answers to all the questions they had related to their health concern, believed they were able to manage the issue, had a plan they could follow, and knew what to do if the issue got worse or came back., Conclusions: Many presenting complaints were low acuity, and most patients had a primary care provider, but timely access was not available. Future work should focus on health equity to ensure virtual care is accessible to underserved populations. We question if virtual urgent care can be safely and more economically provided by non-emergency physicians., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians (CAEP)/ Association Canadienne de Médecine d'Urgence (ACMU).)

Objective: To risk-stratify COVID-19 patients being considered for discharge from the emergency department (ED)., Methods: We conducted an observational study to derive and validate a clinical decision rule to identify COVID-19 patients at risk for hospital admission or death within 72 hours of ED discharge. We used data from 49 sites in the Canadian COVID-19 Emergency Department Rapid Response Network (CCEDRRN) between March 1, 2020, and September 8, 2021. We randomly assigned hospitals to derivation or validation and prespecified clinical variables as candidate predictors. We used logistic regression to develop the score in a derivation cohort and examined its performance in predicting short-term adverse outcomes in a validation cohort., Results: Of 15,305 eligible patient visits, 535 (3.6%) experienced the outcome. The score included age, sex, pregnancy status, temperature, arrival mode, respiratory rate, and respiratory distress. The area under the curve was 0.70 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.68-0.73) in derivation and 0.71 (95% CI 0.68-0.73) in combined derivation and validation cohorts. Among those with a score of 3 or less, the risk for the primary outcome was 1.9% or less, and the sensitivity of using 3 as a rule-out score was 89.3% (95% CI 82.7-94.0). Among those with a score of ≥9, the risk for the primary outcome was as high as 12.2% and the specificity of using 9 as a rule-in score was 95.6% (95% CI 94.9-96.2)., Conclusion: The CCEDRRN COVID discharge score can identify patients at risk of short-term adverse outcomes after ED discharge with variables that are readily available on patient arrival., Competing Interests: The authors have declared no conflict of interest., (© 2022 The Authors. JACEP Open published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American College of Emergency Physicians.)

This is the sixth annual summary of the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations. This summary addresses the most recently published resuscitation evidence reviewed by International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation Task Force science experts. Topics covered by systematic reviews include cardiopulmonary resuscitation during transport; approach to resuscitation after drowning; passive ventilation; minimizing pauses during cardiopulmonary resuscitation; temperature management after cardiac arrest; use of diagnostic point-of-care ultrasound during cardiac arrest; use of vasopressin and corticosteroids during cardiac arrest; coronary angiography after cardiac arrest; public-access defibrillation devices for children; pediatric early warning systems; maintaining normal temperature immediately after birth; suctioning of amniotic fluid at birth; tactile stimulation for resuscitation immediately after birth; use of continuous positive airway pressure for respiratory distress at term birth; respiratory and heart rate monitoring in the delivery room; supraglottic airway use in neonates; prearrest prediction of in-hospital cardiac arrest mortality; basic life support training for likely rescuers of high-risk populations; effect of resuscitation team training; blended learning for life support training; training and recertification for resuscitation instructors; and recovery position for maintenance of breathing and prevention of cardiac arrest. Members from 6 task forces have assessed, discussed, and debated the quality of the evidence using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation criteria and generated consensus treatment recommendations. Insights into the deliberations of the task forces are provided in the Justification and Evidence-to-Decision Framework Highlights sections, and priority knowledge gaps for future research are listed.

Background: Treatment for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) evolved between pandemic waves. Our objective was to compare treatments, acute care utilization, and outcomes of COVID-19 patients presenting to emergency departments (ED) across pandemic waves., Methods: This observational study enrolled consecutive eligible COVID-19 patients presenting to 46 EDs participating in the Canadian COVID-19 ED Rapid Response Network (CCEDRRN) between March 1 and December 31, 2020. We collected data by retrospective chart review. Our primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included treatments, hospital and ICU admissions, ED revisits and readmissions. Logistic regression modeling assessed the impact of pandemic wave on outcomes., Results: We enrolled 9,967 patients in 8 provinces, 3,336 from the first and 6,631 from the second wave. Patients in the second wave were younger, fewer met criteria for severe COVID-19, and more were discharged from the ED. Adjusted for patient characteristics and disease severity, steroid use increased (odds ratio [OR] 7.4; 95% confidence interval [CI] 6.2-8.9), and invasive mechanical ventilation decreased (OR 0.5; 95% CI 0.4-0.7) in the second wave compared to the first. After adjusting for differences in patient characteristics and disease severity, the odds of hospitalization (OR 0.7; 95% CI 0.6-0.8) and critical care admission (OR 0.7; 95% CI 0.6-0.9) decreased, while mortality remained unchanged (OR 0.7; 95% CI 0.5-1.1)., Interpretation: In patients presenting to cute care facilities, we observed rapid uptake of evidence-based therapies and less use of experimental therapies in the second wave. We observed increased rates of ED discharges and lower hospital and critical care resource use over time. Substantial reductions in mechanical ventilation were not associated with increasing mortality. Advances in treatment strategies created health system efficiencies without compromising patient outcomes., Trial Registration: Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT04702945., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Aim: Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) is used in cardiac arrest patients to assess for reversible causes. We aimed to conduct a diagnostic test accuracy systematic review of intra-arrest POCUS to indicate the etiology of cardiac arrest in adults in any setting., Methods: This review is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020205207) and reported according to PRISMA guidelines. We searched Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library on October 6, 2021. Two investigators screened titles and abstracts, extracted data, and assessed risks of bias using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) template. We estimated sensitivity and specificity when feasible and evaluated the certainty of evidence with Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology., Results: Of 8,621 search results, 12 observational studies reported 26 combinations of index tests and reference standards to indicate six different etiologies of cardiac arrest. All studies had high risks of bias from subject selection, lack of blinding, reference standards susceptible to confounding, and/or differential verification. One study reported sufficient data to complete contingency tables for sensitivity and specificity of POCUS to identify myocardial infarction, cardiac tamponade, and pulmonary embolism as the etiology of cardiac arrest. Heterogeneity and risk of bias precluded meta-analysis and the certainty of evidence was uniformly very low., Conclusions: It is feasible to identify reversible causes of cardiac arrest with POCUS, but the current literature is heterogenous with high risks of bias, wide confidence intervals, and very low certainty of evidence, which render these data difficult to interpret., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

The International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation initiated a continuous review of new, peer-reviewed published cardiopulmonary resuscitation science. This is the fifth annual summary of the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations; a more comprehensive review was done in 2020. This latest summary addresses the most recently published resuscitation evidence reviewed by International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation task force science experts. Topics covered by systematic reviews in this summary include resuscitation topics of video-based dispatch systems; head-up cardiopulmonary resuscitation; early coronary angiography after return of spontaneous circulation; cardiopulmonary resuscitation in the prone patient; cord management at birth for preterm and term infants; devices for administering positive-pressure ventilation at birth; family presence during neonatal resuscitation; self-directed, digitally based basic life support education and training in adults and children; coronavirus disease 2019 infection risk to rescuers from patients in cardiac arrest; and first aid topics, including cooling with water for thermal burns, oral rehydration for exertional dehydration, pediatric tourniquet use, and methods of tick removal. Members from 6 International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation task forces have assessed, discussed, and debated the quality of the evidence, according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation criteria, and their statements include consensus treatment recommendations or good practice statements. Insights into the deliberations of the task forces are provided in Justification and Evidence-to-Decision Framework Highlights sections. In addition, the task forces listed priority knowledge gaps for further research.