Diagnosis of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest by Emergency Medical Dispatch : a diagnostic systematic review

Introduction Cardiac arrest is a time-sensitive condition requiring urgent intervention. Prompt and accurate recognition of cardiac arrest by emergency medical dispatchers at the time of the emergency call is a critical early step in cardiac arrest management allowing for initiation of dispatcher-assisted bystander CPR and appropriate and timely emergency response. The overall accuracy of dispatchers in recognizing cardiac arrest is not known. It is also not known if there are specific call characteristics that impact the ability to recognize cardiac arrest. Methods We performed a systematic review to examine dispatcher recognition of cardiac arrest as well as to identify call characteristics that may affect their ability to recognize cardiac arrest at the time of emergency call. We searched electronic databases for terms related to “emergency medical dispatcher”, “cardiac arrest’, and “diagnosis,” among others, with a focus on studies that allowed for calculating diagnostic test characteristics (e.g. sensitivity and specificity). The review was consistent with Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) method for evidence evaluation. Results We screened 2520 article titles, resulting in 47 studies included in this review. There was significant heterogeneity between studies with a high risk of bias in 18 of the 47 which precluded performing meta-analyses. The reported sensitivities for cardiac arrest recognition ranged from 0.46 to 0.98 whereas specificities ranged from 0.32 to 1.00. There were no obvious differences in diagnostic accuracy between different dispatching criteria/algorithms or with the level of education of dispatchers. Conclusion The sensitivity and specificity of cardiac arrest recognition at the time of emergency call varied across dispatch centres and did not appear to differ by dispatch algorithm/criteria used or education of the dispatcher, although comparisons were hampered by heterogeneity across studies. Future efforts should focus on ways to improve sensitivity of cardiac arrest recognition to optimize patient care and ensure appropriate and timely resource utilizatio

Cognitive aids used in simulated resuscitation : A systematic review

Objectives: To compare the effectiveness of cognitive aid use during resuscitation with no use of cognitive aids on cardiopulmonary resuscitation quality and performance. Methods: This systematic review followed the PICOST format. All randomised controlled trials and non-randomised studies evaluating cognitive aid use during (simulated) resuscitation were included in any setting. Unpublished studies were excluded. We did not include studies that reported cognitive aid use during training for resuscitation alone. Medline, Embase and Cochrane databases were searched from inception until July 2019 (updated August 2022, November 2023, and 23 April 2024). We did not search trial registries. Title and abstract screening, full-text screening, data extraction, risk of bias assessment (using RoB2 and ROBINS-I), and certainty of evidence (using GRADE) were performed by two researchers. PRISMA reporting standards were followed, and registration (PROSPERO CRD42020159162, version 19 July 2022) was performed. No funding has been obtained. Results: The literature search identified 5029 citations. After removing 512 duplicates, reviewing the titles and abstracts of the remaining articles yielded 103 articles for full-text review. Hand-searching identified 3 more studies for full-text review. Of these, 29 studies were included in the final analysis. No clinical studies involving patients were identified. The review was limited to indirect evidence from simulation studies only. The results are presented in five different populations: healthcare professionals managing simulated resuscitations in neonates, children, adult advanced life support, and other emergencies; as well as lay providers managing resuscitations. Main outcomes were adherence to protocol or process, adherence to protocol or process assessed by performance score, CPR performance and retention, and feasibility of chatbot guidance. The risk of bias assessment ranged from low to high. Studies in neonatal, paediatric and adult life support delivered by healthcare professionals showed benefits of using cognitive aids, however, some studies evaluating resuscitations by lay providers reported undesirable effects. The performance of a meta-analysis was not possible due to significant methodological heterogeneity. The certainty of evidence was rated as moderate to very low due to serious indirectness, (very) serious risk of bias, serious inconsistency and (very) serious imprecision. Conclusion: Because of the very low certainty evidence from simulation studies, we suggest that cognitive aids should be used by healthcare professionals during resuscitation. In contrast, we do not suggest use of cognitive aids for lay providers, based on low certainty evidence.Peer reviewe