Pre-filled syringes with adrenaline during cardiopulmonary resuscitation in nonshockable rhythms. Pilot randomised crossover simulation study

Background: Pre-filled syringes are increasingly popular in medicine, especially in emergency medicine, where fast intervention is crucial. Additionally, as indicated by numerous studies, the use of drugs in prefilled syringes reduces the risk of medical errors associated with inadequate preparation of the drug and reduces the risk of contamination as a result of tissue injury due to rupture of a standard ampoule with the drug. The aim of the study was to compare the use of pre-filled syringes with adrenaline and standard adrenalinę in ampoules during simulated CPR during simulated cardiopulmonary resuscitation in non-shockable rhythms performed by two-person teams.   Methods: The study was a randomised cross-over study and was based on medical simulation. The study involved 40 paramedics assigned randomly to 20 two-person rescue teams. These teams were to perform 10-minute cardiopulmonary resuscitation in three research scenarios: Scenario A — During CPR, access to the median basilic vein and preparation and administration of adrenaline infusions from generally available ampoules at concentration 1:1000 were required (Adrenaline WZF 0.1%; Polfa, Warsaw, Poland) with a standard syringe; Scenario B — During resuscitation, the median basilic vein was accessed and adrenalinę was to be administered from an adrenaline pre-filled syringe (Aguettant Santé, Lyon, France); Scenario C — During CPR, intraosseous tibial vascular access was obtained using a NIO Adult kit, and adrenaline was administered using a pre-filled syringe with adrenaline (Aguettant Santé, Lyon, France). Both the order of resuscitation and medication administration as well as the order of participants were random.   Results : The time to obtain vascular access in the examined scenarios varied and was 240 sec [IQR; 220–265] for Scenario A, 236 sec [IQR; 210–270] for Scenario B, and 165 sec [IQR; 90–180] for Scenario C; A vs. C, (p < 0.001), B vs. C (p < 0.001). In scenarios A, B, and C, the duration of adrenaline administration varied and was 55 sec [IQR; 50–85] vs. 20 sec [IQR; 18–35] vs. 20 sec [IQR; 20–30] (A vs. B, and A vs. C, p < 0.001).   Conclusion: A simulation study has shown that paramedics in two-person teams are unable to deliver adrenaline at the time recommended by CPR guidelines. The delay of CPM adrenaline supply compared to PFS adrenaline is statistically significant. In the opinion of paramedics participating in the study, adrenalinę during resuscitation should be administered by means of pre-filled syringes, which eliminates the delays in rescue operations resulting from the time needed to prepare drugs as well as limited human resources in rescue teams

Place of magnesium sulfate in cardiopulmonary resuscitation. A systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION: Sudden cardiac arrest treatment is challenging, And the effectiveness of resuscitation procedures — especially in pre-hospital conditions — is low. The purpose of this meta-analysis is to investigate the effects of magnesium sulfate (MgSO4) in cardiac arrest on the return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) and survival to hospital discharge.   MATERIAL AND METHODS: We searched in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, and ClinicalTrials.gov, Web of Science up to May 25, 2020, and we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis. We synthesized results by using mean differences, and odds ratios. The overall incidence and outcome of cardiac arrest were assessed using a random-effects meta-analysis.   RESULTS: A total of 5 eligible studies were included in this meta-analysis. Survival to discharge was higher in magnesium sulfate group compared to placebo group (9,5% vs. 8.2% respectively; OR = 1.17; 95% CI: 0.61, 2.23; p = 0.64). Higher survival rate to hospital admission was observed in the placebo group — 26.9% compared to the group where magnesium was administered — 25.7% (OR = 0.93; 95% CI: 0.59, 1.47; p = 0.77.   CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, this meta-analysis indicates no statistically significant benefit of resuscitation with magnesium sulfate compared to the placebo. Thus, due to the low number of studies we recommend future randomized controlled trials to identify which anti-arrhythmic drug we should use on shock-refractory cardiac arrest

Systematic review and meta-analysis appraising efficacy and safety of adrenaline for adult cardiopulmonary resuscitation

Background: There is a beneficial effect of adrenaline during adult cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) from cardiac arrest but there is also uncertainty about its safety and effectiveness. The aim of this study was to evaluate the use of adrenaline versus non-adrenaline CPR.Methods: PubMed, ScienceDirect, Embase, CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) and Google Scholar databases were searched from their inception up to 1st July 2020. Two reviewers independently assessed eligibility and risk of bias, with conflicts resolved by a third reviewer. Risk ratio (RR) or mean difference of groups were calculated using fixed or random-effect models.Results: Nineteen trials were identified. The use of adrenaline during CPR was associated with a significantly higher percentage of return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) compared to non-adrenaline treatment (20.9% vs. 5.9%; RR = 1.87; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.37–2.55; p < 0.001). The use of adrenaline in CPR was associated with ROSC at 19.4% and for non-adrenaline treatment — 4.3% (RR = 3.23; 95% CI 1.89–5.53; p < 0.001). Survival to discharge (or 30-day survival) when using adrenaline was 6.8% compared to non-adrenaline treatment (5.5%; RR = 0.99; 95% CI 0.76–1.30; p = 0.97). However, the use of adrenaline was associated with a worse neurological outcome (1.6% vs.2.2%; RR = 0.57; 95% CI 0.42–0.78; p < 0.001).Conclusions: This review suggests that resuscitation with adrenaline is associated with the ROSC and survival to hospital discharge, but no higher effectiveness was observed at discharge with favorable neurological outcome. The analysis showed higher effectiveness of ROSC and survival to hospital discharge in non-shockable rhythms. But more multicenter randomized controlled trials are needed in the future

Video laryngoscopy for endotracheal intubation of adult patients with suspected/ confirmed COVID-19. A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Study objective: During a pandemic, medical personnel while in contact with patients with suspected/confirmed COVID-19 should wear full personal protective equipment (PPE) for aerosol-generating procedures to reduce the risk of infection. Most studies of intubation in level C PPE conditions have been relatively small. Our aim is to quantify the available data on success rates in order to provide an evidence-based benchmark to gauge performance in the published literature.   Methods: A structured literature search was performed with PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases. The electronic database search was supplemented by searching Google Scholar and by back-searching the reference lists of identified studies for suitable articles. Data were evaluated and extracted by two independent reviewers on the basis of qualitative and quantitative variables of interest. Q statistic and I2 statistics were used to assess the heterogeneity between the studies.   Results : Fifteen randomized controlled trials were included. The use of PPE during intubation as compared with intubation without PPE reduced intubation efficacy (90.0% vs. 97.9%; RR = 0.94; 95%CI: 0.90–0.99; p < 0.001) and increased the procedure time (MD = 7.73; 95%CI: 4.98–10.47; p < 0.001). Direct laryngoscopy compared with video laryngoscopes offered similar intubation success rate (93.6% vs. 92.3%; RR = 0.99; 95%CI: 0.97–1.02; p = 0.66) and shorter intubation time (MD = 63; 95%CI: -0.77–12.03; p = 0.08). However, subgroup analysis showed that intubation with Macintosh blade video laryngoscopes was more effective than that with direct laryngoscopes (98.1% vs. 96.4%; RR = 1.00; 95%CI: 0.97–1.03; p = 0.90).   Conclusions: Our meta-analysis suggests that PPE reduces the effectiveness of endotracheal intubation. The use of direct laryngoscopy for intubating patients with suspected/confirmed COVID-19 by an intubator wearing level C PPE is associated with overall intubation time reduction and an increase in intubation success rate compared with video laryngoscopes. However, the findings suggest that Macintosh blade video laryngoscopes during endotracheal intubation with PPE may be an alternative to direct laryngoscopes. Video laryngoscopy can be helpful for less experienced personnel

Effect of amiodarone and lidocaine on shock-refractory cardiac arrest: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background: Appropriate pharmacotherapy during advanced resuscitation procedures may affect the return of spontaneous circulation. Current guidelines on cardiopulmonary resuscitation recommend amiodarone for shock‑refractory cardiac arrest or when lidocaine is not available. Aims: The aim of this study was to systematically analyze the available literature and to conduct a meta‑‑analysis to determine the effect of amiodarone and lidocaine on survival and neurological outcome after shock‑refractory cardiac arrest. Methods: PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases were searched. Two independent reviewers screened randomized and quasi‑randomized controlled trials as well as cohort and cross‑sectional trials evaluating amiodarone or lidocaine for the treatment of adults with cardiac arrest. Results: After screening 682 unique references, 8 were selected for this meta‑analysis. A higher number of cases with return of spontaneous circulation was observed in the amiodarone group compared with the lidocaine group (OR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.87–1.21; P = 0.75). A similar relationship was observed for survival to hospital discharge (OR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.92–1.38; P = 0.26), as well as survival with favorable neurological outcome (OR, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.89–1.39; P = 0.35). Conclusions: We found no statistically significant survival benefit of resuscitation with amiodarone compared with lidocaine. Future randomized controlled trials are needed to identify which antiarrhythmic drug should be use in shock‑refractory cardiac arrest

Comparison of Direct and Video Laryngoscopes during Different Airway Scenarios Performed by Experienced Paramedics: A Randomized Cross-Over Manikin Study

Introduction. Airway management plays an essential role in anaesthesia practice, during both elective and urgent surgery procedures and emergency medicine. Aim. The aim of the study was to compare Macintosh laryngoscope (MAC), McGrath, and TruView PCD in 5 separate airway management scenarios. Methods. This prospective cross-over simulation study involved 93 paramedics. All paramedics performed intubation using direct laryngoscope (MAC), McGrath, and TruView PCD video laryngoscopes. The study was performed in 5 different scenarios: (A) normal airway, (B) tongue oedema, (C) pharyngeal obstruction, (D) cervical collar stabilization with tongue oedema, and (E) cervical collar stabilization with pharyngeal obstruction. Results. In scenario A, the success rate was 99% with MAC, 100% with McGrath, and 94% with PCD. Intubation time was 17 s (IQR: 16–21) for MAC, 18 s (IQR: 16–21) for McGrath, and 27 s (IQR: 23–34) for PCD. In scenario B, the success rate was 61% with MAC, 97% with McGrath, and 97% with PCD (p<0.001). Intubation time was 44 s (IQR: 24–46) for MAC, 22 s (IQR: 20–27) for McGrath, and 39 s (IQR: 30–57) for PCD. In scenario C, the success rate with MAC was 74%, 97% with McGrath, and 72% with PCD (p<0.001). Intubation time was 21 s (IQR: 19–29) for MAC, 18 s (IQR: 18–24.5) for McGrath, and 30 s (IQR: 23–39) for PCD. In scenario D, the success rate with MAC was 32%, 69% with McGrath, and 58% with PCD (p<0.001). Intubation time was 26 s (IQR: 20–29) for MAC, 26 s (IQR: 20–29) for McGrath, and 45 s (IQR: 33–56) for PCD. In scenario E, the success rate with MAC was 32%, but 64% with McGrath and 62% with PCD (p<0.001). Intubation time was 28 s (IQR: 25–39) for MAC, 19 s (IQR: 18–26) for McGrath, and 34 s (IQR: 27–45) for PCD. Conclusions. The McGrath video laryngoscope proved better than Truview PCD and direct intubation with Macintosh laryngoscope in terms of success rate, duration of first intubation attempt, number of intubation attempts, Cormack-Lehane grade, percentage of glottis opening (POGO score), number of optimization manoeuvres, severity of dental compression, and ease of use