Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest survival in international airports

Background  The highest achievable survival rate following out-of-hospital cardiac arrest is unknown. Data from airports serving international destinations (international airports) provide the opportunity to evaluate the success of pre-hospital resuscitation in a relatively controlled but real-life environment.  Methods  This retrospective cohort study included all cases of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest at international airports with resuscitation attempted between January 1st, 2013 and December 31st, 2015. Crude incidence, patient, event characteristics and survival to hospital discharge/survival to 30 days (survival) were calculated. Mixed effect logistic regression analyses were performed to identify predictors of survival. Variability in survival between airports/countries was quantified using the median odds ratio.  Results  There were 800 cases identified, with an average of 40 per airport. Incidence was 0.024/100,000 passengers per year. Percentage survival for all patients was 32%, and 58% for patients with an initial shockable heart rhythm.  In adjusted analyses, initial shockable heart rhythm was the strongest predictor of survival (odds ratio, 36.7; 95% confidence interval [CI], 15.5 to 87.0). In the bystander-witnessed subgroup, delivery of a defibrillation shock by a bystander was a strong predictor of survival (odds ratio 4.8; 95% CI, 3.0 to 7.8). Grouping of cases was significant at country level and survival varied between countries.  Conclusions  In international airports, there was 32% of patients survived an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, substantially more than in the general population. Our analysis suggested similarity between airports within countries, but differences between countries. Systematic data collection and reporting is essential to ensure international airports continually maximise activities to increase survival

Does basic life support training simplification foster retention of life saving maneuvers?

Objectives. Simplification of Basic Life Support was proposed with the introduction of Chest-Compression only Cardio-Pulmonary Resuscitation (CC-CPR) as an alternative to Standard CPR (S-CPR). This study aimed to compare retention of knowledge, in the general public, of both CPR techniques (CC-CPR vs. S-CPR). Design, setting and participants. Multicentric prospective comparative cohort study. A training program was conducted among 906 individuals who were assigned to CC-CPR or to S-CPR group. They were evaluated before training (T0), after training (T1) and six months later (T2) on 17 CPR assessment criteria, they were evaluated twice at each time period and one global CPR performance score. Results. Initial knowledge was low. At T1, all CPR performance criteria improved significantly. Results were similar in both groups except for the rate of trainees calling for help and the time to turn on the automated external defibrillator and to deliver the first shock. At T2, the knowledge level was lower than at T1. Finally, CPR performance score was lower in both groups at T2 compared to T1 but statistically higher than at T0. CPR performance score was higher in the CC-CPR group than in the S-CPR group at T2 (p=0.041). Conclusions. Performance score was significantly higher in the CC-CPR group. CC-CPR training seems to result in better retention and a faster reaction in the setting of an out of hospital cardiac arrest. Moreover, the retention of knowledge among a trained population fades partially with time. Regular CPR training should therefore be proposed to avoid the loss of benefit with time

Intraosseous Versus Peripheral Intravenous Access During Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest: a Comparison of 30-Day Survival and Neurological Outcome in the French National Registry.

International audiencePurposeTo compare intraosseous access with peripheral venous access on adults out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) patients’ clinical outcomes.MethodsA national retrospective multicentre study was conducted based on the French National Cardiac Arrest Registry. Comparison of patients (intraosseous vs. peripheral venous access) was conducted before and after a matching using a propensity score. The propensity score included confounding factors: age, time between the call (T0) to epinephrine (to take account of how quickly vascular access was achieved), the aetiology of OHCA, the shock and the patient initial rhythm at MMT arrival.ResultsA total of 1576 patients received intraosseous access, and 27,280 received peripheral intravenous access. Before matching, OHCA patients with intraosseous access were less likely to survive at all stages (return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), 0-day survival and 30-day survival). No significant difference in neurological outcome was observed. After propensity score matching, no significant differences in 30-day survival rates (OR = 0.763 [0.473;1.231]) and neurological outcome (OR = 1.296 [0.973;1.726]) were observed. However, intraosseous patients still showed lower likelihood of short-term survival (ROSC and 0-day survival) even after propensity score matching was implemented.ConclusionThe populations we investigated were similar to those of other studies suggesting that intraosseous access is associated with reduced survival and poorer neurological outcome. Our findings suggest that intraosseous access is a comparably effective alternative to peripheral intravenous access for treating OHCA patients on matched populations

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

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