ACUTE CORONARY SYNDROME AFTER HORNET BITE, TYPE II KOUNIS SYNDROME – A CASE REPORT

Kounisov sindrom je slučajna pojava akutnoga koronarnog sindroma povezan s anafilaksijom u kojoj akutni upalni medijatori dovode do spazma koronarnih arterija s erozijom i rupturom ateromatozne ploče. Prikazan je 53-godišnji muškarac poslije uboda stršljena u kojeg se u toku tretmana anafilaksije razvio akutni infarkt miokarda anteroseptalne lokalizacije. Dijagnoza Kounisova sindroma tipa II dokazana je elektrokardiografskim promjenama i biokemijskim markerima uz kliničku manifestaciju akutnoga koronarnog sindroma, a povezana je s anafilaksijom zbog koje je započet prehospitalni tretman bolesnika poslije uboda stršljena. Za anafilaksije poslije uboda stršljena potrebno je na vrijeme pomisliti na akutni koronarni sindrom ako bolesnici imaju bol u prsima i hemodinamski poremećaj jer se ova stanja rijetko događaju, a zahtijevaju dodatnu dijagnostiku i primjenu odgovarajućeg liječenja.Kounis syndrome is an accidental occurrence of acute coronary syndrome associated with anaphylaxis, where acute inflammatory mediators cause the spasm of coronary arteries with the erosion and rupture of atheromatous plaque. We present a 53-year-old male who during the treatment of anaphylaxis after a hornet bite developed acute anteroseptal myocardial infarction. The diagnosis of type II Kounis syndrome was proven by electrocardiographic abnormalities and biochemical markers with clinical manifestation of acute coronary syndrome, and was associated with anaphylaxis which demanded prehospital treatment of the patient after the hornet bite. Anaphylaxis after a hornet bite requires consideration of acute coronary syndrome if patients have chest pain and hemodynamic impairment, as these conditions occur infrequently but demand additional diagnostics and adequate treatmen

The Automated External Defibrillator : Heterogeneity of Legislation, Mapping and Use across Europe. New Insights from the ENSURE Study

Introduction: The rapid use of an automated external defibrillator (AED) is crucial for increased survival after an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). Many factors could play a role in limiting the chance of an AED use. We aimed to verify the situation regarding AED legislation, the AED mapping system and first responders (FRs) equipped with an AED across European countries. Methods: We performed a survey across Europe entitled “European Study about AED Use by Lay Rescuers” (ENSURE), asking the national coordinators of the European Registry of Cardiac Arrest (EuReCa) program to complete it. Results: Nineteen European countries replied to the survey request for a population covering 128,297,955 inhabitants. The results revealed that every citizen can use an AED in 15 countries whereas a training certificate was required in three countries. In one country, only EMS personnel were allowed to use an AED. An AED mapping system and FRs equipped with an AED were available in only 11 countries. The AED use rate was 12–59% where AED mapping and FR systems were implemented, which was considerably higher than in other countries (0–7.9%), reflecting the difference in OHCA survival. Conclusions: Our survey highlighted a heterogeneity in AED legislation, AED mapping systems and AED use in Europe, which was reflected in different AED use and survival

The automated external defibrillator: Heterogeneity of legislation, mapping and use across europe. new insights from the ensure study

Introduction: The rapid use of an automated external defibrillator (AED) is crucial for increased survival after an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). Many factors could play a role in limiting the chance of an AED use. We aimed to verify the situation regarding AED legislation, the AED mapping system and first responders (FRs) equipped with an AED across European countries. Methods: We performed a survey across Europe entitled “European Study about AED Use by Lay Rescuers” (ENSURE), asking the national coordinators of the European Registry of Cardiac Arrest (EuReCa) program to complete it. Results: Nineteen European countries replied to the survey re-quest for a population covering 128,297,955 inhabitants. The results revealed that every citizen can use an AED in 15 countries whereas a training certificate was required in three countries. In one country, only EMS personnel were allowed to use an AED. An AED mapping system and FRs equipped with an AED were available in only 11 countries. The AED use rate was 12–59% where AED mapping and FR systems were implemented, which was considerably higher than in other countries (0–7.9%), reflecting the difference in OHCA survival. Conclusions: Our survey highlighted a heterogeneity in AED legislation, AED mapping systems and AED use in Europe, which was re-flected in different AED use and survival

Survival after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in Europe - results of the EuReCa TWO study.

BACKGROUND The epidemiology and outcome after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) varies across Europe. Following on from EuReCa ONE, the aim of this study was to further explore the incidence of and outcomes from OHCA in Europe and to improve understanding of the role of the bystander. METHODS This prospective, multicentre study involved the collection of registry-based data over a three-month period (1 October 2017 to 31 December 2017). The core study dataset complied with the Utstein-style. Primary outcomes were return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) and survival to hospital admission. Secondary outcome was survival to hospital discharge. RESULTS All 28 countries provided data, covering a total population of 178,879,118. A total of 37,054 OHCA were confirmed, with CPR being started in 25,171 cases. The bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) rate ranged from 13% to 82% between countries (average: 58%). In one third of cases (33%) ROSC was achieved and 8% of patients were discharged from hospital alive. Survival to hospital discharge was higher in patients when a bystander performed CPR with ventilations, compared to compression-only CPR (14% vs. 8% respectively). CONCLUSION In addition to increasing our understanding of the role of bystander CPR within Europe, EuReCa TWO has confirmed large variation in OHCA incidence, characteristics and outcome, and highlighted the extent to which OHCA is a public health burden across Europe. Unexplained variation remains and the EuReCa network has a continuing role to play in improving the quality management of resuscitation

To ventilate or not to ventilate during bystander CPR — A EuReCa TWO analysis

Background: Survival after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) is still low. For every minute without resuscitation the likelihood of survival decreases. One critical step is initiation of immediate, high quality cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). The aim of this subgroup analysis of data collected for the European Registry of Cardiac Arrest Study number 2 (EuReCa TWO) was to investigate the association between OHCA survival and two types of bystander CPR namely: chest compression only CPR (CConly) and CPR with chest compressions and ventilations (FullCPR). Method: In this subgroup analysis of EuReCa TWO, all patients who received bystander CPR were included. Outcomes were return of spontaneous circulation and survival to 30-days or hospital discharge. A multilevel binary logistic regression analysis with survival as the dependent variable was performed. Results: A total of 5884 patients were included in the analysis, varying between countries from 21 to 1444. Survival was 320 (8%) in the CConly group and 174 (13%) in the FullCPR group. After adjustment for age, sex, location, rhythm, cause, time to scene, witnessed collapse and country, patients who received FullCPR had a significantly higher survival rate when compared to those who received CConly (adjusted odds ration 1.46, 95% confidence interval 1.17–1.83). Conclusion: In this analysis, FullCPR was associated with higher survival compared to CConly. Guidelines should continue to emphasise the importance of compressions and ventilations during resuscitation for patients who suffer OHCA and CPR courses should continue to teach both