Cardiopulmonary resuscitation quality: Widespread variation in data intervals used for analysis

AIM: There is a growing body of evidence for the relationship between CPR quality and survival in cardiac arrest patients. We sought to describe the characteristics of the analysis intervals used across studies. METHODS: Relevant papers were selected as described in our recent systematic review. From these papers we collected information about (1) the time interval used for analysis; (2) the event that marked the beginning of the analysis interval; and (3) the minimum amount of CPR quality data required for a case to be included in the analysed cohort. We then compared this data across papers. RESULTS: Twenty-one studies reported on the association between CPR quality and cardiac arrest patient survival. In two thirds of studies data from the start of the resuscitation episode was analysed, in particular the first 5minutes. Commencement of the analysis interval was marked by various events including ECG pad placement and first chest compression. Nine studies specified a minimum amount of data that had to have been collected for the individual case to be included in the analysis; most commonly one minute of data. The use of shorter intervals allowed for inclusion of more cases as it included cases that did not have a complete dataset. CONCLUSION: To facilitate comparisons across studies, a standardized definition of the data analysis interval should be developed; one that maximises the amount of cases available without compromising the data's representability of the resuscitation effort

Systematic review of predictive performance of injury severity scoring tools

Many injury severity scoring tools have been developed over the past few decades. These tools include the Injury Severity Score (ISS), New ISS (NISS), Trauma and Injury Severity Score (TRISS) and International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-based Injury Severity Score (ICISS). Although many studies have endeavored to determine the ability of these tools to predict the mortality of injured patients, their results have been inconsistent. We conducted a systematic review to summarize the predictive performances of these tools and explore the heterogeneity among studies. We defined a relevant article as any research article that reported the area under the Receiver Operating Characteristic curve as a measure of predictive performance. We conducted an online search using MEDLINE and Embase. We evaluated the quality of each relevant article using a quality assessment questionnaire consisting of 10 questions. The total number of positive answers was reported as the quality score of the study. Meta-analysis was not performed due to the heterogeneity among studies. We identified 64 relevant articles with 157 AUROCs of the tools. The median number of positive answers to the questionnaire was 5, ranging from 2 to 8. Less than half of the relevant studies reported the version of the Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) and/or ICD (37.5%). The heterogeneity among the studies could be observed in a broad distribution of crude mortality rates of study data, ranging from 1% to 38%. The NISS was mostly reported to perform better than the ISS when predicting the mortality of blunt trauma patients. The relative performance of the ICSS against the AIS-based tools was inconclusive because of the scarcity of studies. The performance of the ICISS appeared to be unstable because the performance could be altered by the type of formula and survival risk ratios used. In conclusion, high-quality studies were limited. The NISS might perform better in the mortality prediction of blunt injuries than the ISS. Additional studies are required to standardize the derivation of the ICISS and determine the relative performance of the ICISS against the AIS-based tools

Systematic review of predictive performance of injury severity scoring tools

Many injury severity scoring tools have been developed over the past few decades. These tools include the Injury Severity Score (ISS), New ISS (NISS), Trauma and Injury Severity Score (TRISS) and International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-based Injury Severity Score (ICISS). Although many studies have endeavored to determine the ability of these tools to predict the mortality of injured patients, their results have been inconsistent. We conducted a systematic review to summarize the predictive performances of these tools and explore the heterogeneity among studies. We defined a relevant article as any research article that reported the area under the Receiver Operating Characteristic curve as a measure of predictive performance. We conducted an online search using MEDLINE and Embase. We evaluated the quality of each relevant article using a quality assessment questionnaire consisting of 10 questions. The total number of positive answers was reported as the quality score of the study. Meta-analysis was not performed due to the heterogeneity among studies. We identified 64 relevant articles with 157 AUROCs of the tools. The median number of positive answers to the questionnaire was 5, ranging from 2 to 8. Less than half of the relevant studies reported the version of the Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) and/or ICD (37.5%). The heterogeneity among the studies could be observed in a broad distribution of crude mortality rates of study data, ranging from 1% to 38%. The NISS was mostly reported to perform better than the ISS when predicting the mortality of blunt trauma patients. The relative performance of the ICSS against the AIS-based tools was inconclusive because of the scarcity of studies. The performance of the ICISS appeared to be unstable because the performance could be altered by the type of formula and survival risk ratios used. In conclusion, high-quality studies were limited. The NISS might perform better in the mortality prediction of blunt injuries than the ISS. Additional studies are required to standardize the derivation of the ICISS and determine the relative performance of the ICISS against the AIS-based tools

Fall from standing height, or greater, and mortality among ambulance-transported patients with major trauma from falls

Introduction: This study describes the relationship between falls from standing height, or greater, and mortality in ambulance-transported patients with major trauma from falls. Methods: Road ambulance records from 1 January 2013 to 31 December 2016 were linked with WA State Trauma Registry records to identify ambulance-transported falls patients with major trauma. Results: Of the patients who fell from standing level, 114/460 (25%) died within 30 days, compared with 47/222 (21%) who fell from height (p=0.64). Conclusion: Mortality is relatively high, and fall height is not associated with 30-day survival, among ambulance-transported patients with major trauma in metropolitan Perth, Western Australia

Which patients should be transported to the emergency department? A perpetual prehospital dilemma

Objective: To examine the ability of paramedics to identify patients who could be managed in the community and to identify predictors that could be used to accurately identify patients who should be transported to EDs. Methods: Lower acuity patients who were assessed by paramedics in the Perth metropolitan area in 2013 were studied. Paramedics prospectively indicated on the patient care record if they considered that the patient could be treated in the community. The paramedic decisions were compared with actual disposition from the ED (discharge and admission), and the occurrence of subsequent events (ambulance request, ED visit, admission and death) for discharged patients at the scene was investigated. Decision tree analysis was used to identify predictors that were associated with hospital admission. Results: In total, 57183 patients were transported to the ED, and 10204 patients were discharged at the scene by paramedics. Paramedics identified 2717 patients who could potentially be treated in the community among those who were transported to the ED. Of these, 1455 patients (53.6%) were admitted to hospital. For patients discharged at the scene, those who were indicated as suitable for community care were more likely to experience subsequent events than those who were not. The decision tree found that two predictors (age and aetiology) were associated with hospital admission. Overall discriminative power of the decision tree was poor; the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.686. Conclusion: Lower acuity patients who could be treated in the community were not accurately identified by paramedics. This process requires further evaluation. © 2016 Australasian College for Emergency Medicine and Australasian Society for Emergency Medicine

The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2020 (J-SSCG 2020)

The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2020 (J-SSCG 2020), a Japanese-specific set of clinical practice guidelines for sepsis and septic shock created as revised from J-SSCG 2016 jointly by the Japanese Society of Intensive Care Medicine and the Japanese Association for Acute Medicine, was first released in September 2020 and published in February 2021. An English-language version of these guidelines was created based on the contents of the original Japanese-language version. The purpose of this guideline is to assist medical staff in making appropriate decisions to improve the prognosis of patients undergoing treatment for sepsis and septic shock. We aimed to provide high-quality guidelines that are easy to use and understand for specialists, general clinicians, and multidisciplinary medical professionals. J-SSCG 2016 took up new subjects that were not present in SSCG 2016 (e.g., ICU-acquired weakness [ICU-AW], post-intensive care syndrome [PICS], and body temperature management). The J-SSCG 2020 covered a total of 22 areas with four additional new areas (patient- and family-centered care, sepsis treatment system, neuro-intensive treatment, and stress ulcers). A total of 118 important clinical issues (clinical questions, CQs) were extracted regardless of the presence or absence of evidence. These CQs also include those that have been given particular focus within Japan. This is a large-scale guideline covering multiple fields; thus, in addition to the 25 committee members, we had the participation and support of a total of 226 members who are professionals (physicians, nurses, physiotherapists, clinical engineers, and pharmacists) and medical workers with a history of sepsis or critical illness. The GRADE method was adopted for making recommendations, and the modified Delphi method was used to determine recommendations by voting from all committee members.other authors: Yasuhiro Norisue, Satoru Hashimoto, Daisuke Hasegawa, Junji Hatakeyama, Naoki Hara, Naoki Higashibeppu, Nana Furushima, Hirotaka Furusono, Yujiro Matsuishi, Tasuku Matsuyama, Yusuke Minematsu, Ryoichi Miyashita, Yuji Miyatake, Megumi Moriyasu, Toru Yamada, Hiroyuki Yamada, Ryo Yamamoto, Takeshi Yoshida, Yuhei Yoshida, Jumpei Yoshimura, Ryuichi Yotsumoto, Hiroshi Yonekura, Takeshi Wada, Eizo Watanabe, Makoto Aoki, Hideki Asai, Takakuni Abe, Yutaka Igarashi, Naoya Iguchi, Masami Ishikawa, Go Ishimaru, Shutaro Isokawa, Ryuta Itakura, Hisashi Imahase, Haruki Imura, Takashi Irinoda, Kenji Uehara, Noritaka Ushio, Takeshi Umegaki, Yuko Egawa, Yuki Enomoto, Kohei Ota, Yoshifumi Ohchi, Takanori Ohno, Hiroyuki Ohbe, Kazuyuki Oka, Nobunaga Okada, Yohei Okada, Hiromu Okano, Jun Okamoto, Hiroshi Okuda, Takayuki Ogura, Yu Onodera, Yuhta Oyama, Motoshi Kainuma, Eisuke Kako, Masahiro Kashiura, Hiromi Kato, Akihiro Kanaya, Tadashi Kaneko, Keita Kanehata, Ken-ichi Kano, Hiroyuki Kawano, Kazuya Kikutani, Hitoshi Kikuchi, Takahiro Kido, Sho Kimura, Hiroyuki Koami, Daisuke Kobashi, Iwao Saiki, Masahito Sakai, Ayaka Sakamoto, Tetsuya Sato, Yasuhiro Shiga, Manabu Shimoto, Shinya Shimoyama, Tomohisa Shoko, Yoh Sugawara, Atsunori Sugita, Satoshi Suzuki, Yuji Suzuki, Tomohiro Suhara, Kenji Sonota, Shuhei Takauji, Kohei Takashima, Sho Takahashi, Yoko Takahashi, Jun Takeshita, Yuuki Tanaka, Akihito Tampo, Taichiro Tsunoyama, Kenichi Tetsuhara, Kentaro Tokunaga, Yoshihiro Tomioka, Kentaro Tomita, Naoki Tominaga, Mitsunobu Toyosaki, Yukitoshi Toyoda, Hiromichi Naito, Isao Nagata, Tadashi Nagato, Yoshimi Nakamura, Yuki Nakamori, Isao Nahara, Hiromu Naraba, Chihiro Narita, Norihiro Nishioka, Tomoya Nishimura, Kei Nishiyama, Tomohisa Nomura, Taiki Haga, Yoshihiro Hagiwara, Katsuhiko Hashimoto, Takeshi Hatachi, Toshiaki Hamasaki, Takuya Hayashi, Minoru Hayashi, Atsuki Hayamizu, Go Haraguchi, Yohei Hirano, Ryo Fujii, Motoki Fujita, Naoyuki Fujimura, Hiraku Funakoshi, Masahito Horiguchi, Jun Maki, Naohisa Masunaga, Yosuke Matsumura, Takuya Mayumi, Keisuke Minami, Yuya Miyazaki, Kazuyuki Miyamoto, Teppei Murata, Machi Yanai, Takao Yano, Kohei Yamada, Naoki Yamada, Tomonori Yamamoto, Shodai Yoshihiro, Hiroshi Tanaka & Osamu Nishid

The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2020 (J-SSCG 2020)

The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2020 (J-SSCG 2020), a Japanese-specific set of clinical practice guidelines for sepsis and septic shock created as revised from J-SSCG 2016 jointly by the Japanese Society of Intensive Care Medicine and the Japanese Association for Acute Medicine, was first released in September 2020 and published in February 2021. An English-language version of these guidelines was created based on the contents of the original Japanese-language version. The purpose of this guideline is to assist medical staff in making appropriate decisions to improve the prognosis of patients undergoing treatment for sepsis and septic shock. We aimed to provide high-quality guidelines that are easy to use and understand for specialists, general clinicians, and multidisciplinary medical professionals. J-SSCG 2016 took up new subjects that were not present in SSCG 2016 (e.g., ICU-acquired weakness [ICU-AW], post-intensive care syndrome [PICS], and body temperature management). The J-SSCG 2020 covered a total of 22 areas with four additional new areas (patient- and family-centered care, sepsis treatment system, neuro-intensive treatment, and stress ulcers). A total of 118 important clinical issues (clinical questions, CQs) were extracted regardless of the presence or absence of evidence. These CQs also include those that have been given particular focus within Japan. This is a large-scale guideline covering multiple fields; thus, in addition to the 25 committee members, we had the participation and support of a total of 226 members who are professionals (physicians, nurses, physiotherapists, clinical engineers, and pharmacists) and medical workers with a history of sepsis or critical illness. The GRADE method was adopted for making recommendations, and the modified Delphi method was used to determine recommendations by voting from all committee members.As a result, 79 GRADE-based recommendations, 5 Good Practice Statements (GPS), 18 expert consensuses, 27 answers to background questions (BQs), and summaries of definitions and diagnosis of sepsis were created as responses to 118 CQs. We also incorporated visual information for each CQ according to the time course of treatment, and we will also distribute this as an app. The J-SSCG 2020 is expected to be widely used as a useful bedside guideline in the field of sepsis treatment both in Japan and overseas involving multiple disciplines.other authors: Satoru Hashimoto,Daisuke Hasegawa,Junji Hatakeyama,Naoki Hara,Naoki Higashibeppu,Nana Furushima,Hirotaka Furusono,Yujiro Matsuishi,Tasuku Matsuyama,Yusuke Minematsu,Ryoichi Miyashita,Yuji Miyatake,Megumi Moriyasu,Toru Yamada,Hiroyuki Yamada,Ryo Yamamoto,Takeshi Yoshida,Yuhei Yoshida,Jumpei Yoshimura,Ryuichi Yotsumoto,Hiroshi Yonekura,Takeshi Wada,Eizo Watanabe,Makoto Aoki,Hideki Asai,Takakuni Abe,Yutaka Igarashi,Naoya Iguchi,Masami Ishikawa,Go Ishimaru,Shutaro Isokawa,Ryuta Itakura,Hisashi Imahase,Haruki Imura,Takashi Irinoda,Kenji Uehara,Noritaka Ushio,Takeshi Umegaki,Yuko Egawa,Yuki Enomoto,Kohei Ota,Yoshifumi Ohchi,Takanori Ohno,Hiroyuki Ohbe,Kazuyuki Oka,Nobunaga Okada,Yohei Okada,Hiromu Okano,Jun Okamoto,Hiroshi Okuda,Takayuki Ogura,Yu Onodera,Yuhta Oyama,Motoshi Kainuma,Eisuke Kako,Masahiro Kashiura,Hiromi Kato,Akihiro Kanaya,Tadashi Kaneko,Keita Kanehata,Ken-ichi Kano,Hiroyuki Kawano,Kazuya Kikutani,Hitoshi Kikuchi,Takahiro Kido,Sho Kimura,Hiroyuki Koami,Daisuke Kobashi,Iwao Saiki,Masahito Sakai,Ayaka Sakamoto,Tetsuya Sato,Yasuhiro Shiga,Manabu Shimoto,Shinya Shimoyama,Tomohisa Shoko,Yoh Sugawara,Atsunori Sugita,Satoshi Suzuki,Yuji Suzuki,Tomohiro Suhara,Kenji Sonota,Shuhei Takauji,Kohei Takashima,Sho Takahashi,Yoko Takahashi,Jun Takeshita,Yuuki Tanaka,Akihito Tampo,Taichiro Tsunoyama,Kenichi Tetsuhara,Kentaro Tokunaga,Yoshihiro Tomioka,Kentaro Tomita,Naoki Tominaga,Mitsunobu Toyosaki,Yukitoshi Toyoda,Hiromichi Naito,Isao Nagata,Tadashi Nagato,Yoshimi Nakamura,Yuki Nakamori,Isao Nahara,Hiromu Naraba,Chihiro Narita,Norihiro Nishioka,Tomoya Nishimura,Kei Nishiyama,Tomohisa Nomura,Taiki Haga,Yoshihiro Hagiwara,Katsuhiko Hashimoto,Takeshi Hatachi,Toshiaki Hamasaki,Takuya Hayashi,Minoru Hayashi,Atsuki Hayamizu,Go Haraguchi,Yohei Hirano,Ryo Fujii,Motoki Fujita,Naoyuki Fujimura,Hiraku Funakoshi,Masahito Horiguchi,Jun Maki,Naohisa Masunaga,Yosuke Matsumura,Takuya Mayumi,Keisuke Minami,Yuya Miyazaki,Kazuyuki Miyamoto,Teppei Murata,Machi Yanai,Takao Yano,Kohei Yamada,Naoki Yamada,Tomonori Yamamoto,Shodai Yoshihiro,Hiroshi Tanaka,Osamu NishidaGuideline

Cardiopulmonary resuscitation quality and patient survival outcome in cardiac arrest: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Aim: To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine whether cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) quality, as indicated by parameters such as chest compression depth, compression rate and compression fraction, is associated with patient survival from cardiac arrest. Methods: Five databases were searched (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Scopus and Cochrane) as well as the grey literature (MedNar). To satisfy inclusion criteria, studies had to document human cases of in- or out-of hospital cardiac arrest where CPR quality had been recorded using an automated device and linked to patient survival. Where indicated (I2<75%), meta-analysis was undertaken to examine the relationship between individual CPR quality parameters and either survival to hospital discharge (STHD) or return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC). Results: Database searching yielded 8,842 unique citations, resulting in the inclusion of 22 relevant articles. Thirteen were included in the meta-analysis. Chest compression depth was significantly associated with STHD (mean difference (MD) between survivors and non-survivors 2.59. mm, 95% CI: 0.71, 4.47); and with ROSC (MD 0.99. mm, 95% CI: 0.04, 1.93). Within the range of approximately 100-120. compressions per minute (cpm), compression rate was significantly associated with STHD; survivors demonstrated a lower mean compression rate than non-survivors (MD -1.17 cpm, 95% CI: -2.21, -0.14). Compression fraction could not be examined by meta-analysis due to high heterogeneity, however a higher fraction appeared to be associated with survival in cases with a shockable initial rhythm. Conclusions: Chest compression depth and rate were associated with survival outcomes. More studies with consistent reporting of data are required for other quality parameters

A comparison of major trauma patient transport destination in metropolitan Perth, Western Australia

Background: Despite evidence of a lower risk of death, major trauma patients are not always transported to Trauma Centres. This study examines the characteristics and outcomes of major trauma patients between transport destinations. Methods: A retrospective cohort study of major trauma patients (Injury Severity Score >15) transported by ambulance was undertaken. Cases were divided into transport destination groups: (1) Direct, those transported to the Trauma Centre directly from the scene; (2) Indirect, those transported to another hospital prior to Trauma Centre transfer and (3) Non-transfers, those transported to a non-Trauma Centre and never subsequently transferred. Median and interquartile range (IQR) were used to describe the groups and differences were assessed using the Kruskal–Wallis test for continuous variables and Pearson chi-square for categorical. Results: A total of 1625 patients were included. The median age was oldest in the non-transfers cohort (72 years IQR 46–84). This group had the highest proportion of falls from standing and head injuries (n = 298/400, 75%, p < 0.001). The non-transfers had the highest proportion of 30-day mortality (n = 134/400, 34%). Conclusions: There were significant differences between the groups with older adults, falls and head injuries over-represented in the non-transfer group. Considering the ageing population, trauma systems will need to adapt