Bendamustine and rituximab is well-tolerated and efficient in the treatment of indolent non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and mantle cell lymphoma in elderly: A single center observational study.

Bendamustine and rituximab (BR) is a preferred first-line therapy for indolent non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (iNHL) and mantle cell lymphoma (MCL); however, few reports on BR performance in elderly patients are available to date. We compared safety and efficacy of BR in patients ≥70 years (elderly) vs <70 years (younger) treated at our institution. Among 201 patients, 113 were elderly (median age: 77 years), including 38 patients ≥80 years, and 88 were younger (median age: 62 years). Elderly patients had more bone marrow involvement by lymphoma, anemia, ECOG status 3 and high-risk disease follicular lymphoma (P < .05 for all). Fifty-four percent of elderly received full dose of bendamustine vs 79.5% of younger patients. More elderly patients (54%) vs younger (43.2%) experienced treatment delay. Less elderly proceeded to rituximab maintenance. Overall, the number of adverse events per patient and transformed B-Cell lymphoma/secondary malignancies were similar between groups. Elderly patients had less febrile neutropenia, rituximab-associated infusion reactions, but more herpes zoster reactivation. There were more deaths in the elderly (37.2%) vs younger (10.2%) groups (P < .001), mainly due to non-lymphoma-related causes. With median follow-up of 42 months [4.0-97.0] disease-free survival for the elderly was similar to younger patients. There was no difference between patients <80 and ≥80 years (P = .274). In conclusion, the real-world elderly patients have more advanced disease and higher ECOG status. BR is well-tolerated; elderly patients had lower incidence of febrile neutropenia. Dose reduction and treatment delays are common, but BR efficacy was not affected even in very old patients (≥80 years).

Defibrillation Strategies for Refractory Ventricular Fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: Despite advances in defibrillation technology, shock-refractory ventricular fibrillation remains common during out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Double sequential external defibrillation (DSED; rapid sequential shocks from two defibrillators) and vector-change (VC) defibrillation (switching defibrillation pads to an anterior-posterior position) have been proposed as defibrillation strategies to improve outcomes in patients with refractory ventricular fibrillation. METHODS: We conducted a cluster-randomized trial with crossover among six Canadian paramedic services to evaluate DSED and VC defibrillation as compared with standard defibrillation in adult patients with refractory ventricular fibrillation during out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Patients were treated with one of these three techniques according to the strategy that was randomly assigned to the paramedic service. The primary outcome was survival to hospital discharge. Secondary outcomes included termination of ventricular fibrillation, return of spontaneous circulation, and a good neurologic outcome, defined as a modified Rankin scale score of 2 or lower (indicating no symptoms to slight disability) at hospital discharge. RESULTS: A total of 405 patients were enrolled before the data and safety monitoring board stopped the trial because of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. A total of 136 patients (33.6%) were assigned to receive standard defibrillation, 144 (35.6%) to receive VC defibrillation, and 125 (30.9%) to receive DSED. Survival to hospital discharge was more common in the DSED group than in the standard group (30.4% vs. 13.3%; relative risk, 2.21; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.33 to 3.67) and more common in the VC group than in the standard group (21.7% vs. 13.3%; relative risk, 1.71; 95% CI, 1.01 to 2.88). DSED but not VC defibrillation was associated with a higher percentage of patients having a good neurologic outcome than standard defibrillation (relative risk, 2.21 [95% CI, 1.26 to 3.88] and 1.48 [95% CI, 0.81 to 2.71], respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with refractory ventricular fibrillation, survival to hospital discharge occurred more frequently among those who received DSED or VC defibrillation than among those who received standard defibrillation. (Funded by the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada; DOSE VF ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04080986.).

Increased demand for paramedic transports to the emergency department in Ontario, Canada: a population-level descriptive study from 2010 to 2019.

PURPOSE: We examined changes in annual paramedic transport incidence over the ten years prior to COVID-19 in comparison to increases in population growth and emergency department (ED) visitation by walk-in. METHODS: We conducted a population-level cohort study using the National Ambulatory Care Reporting System from January 1, 2010 to December 31, 2019 in Ontario, Canada. We included all patients triaged in the ED who arrived by either paramedic transport or walk-in. We clustered geographical regions using the Local Health Integration Network boundaries. Descriptive statistics, rate ratios (RR), and 95% confidence intervals were calculated to explore population-adjusted changes in transport volumes. RESULTS: Overall incidence of paramedic transports increased by 38.3% (n = 264,134), exceeding population growth fourfold (9.4%) and walk-in ED visitation threefold (13.4%). Population-adjusted transport rates increased by 26.2% (rate ratio 1.26, 95% CI 1.26-1.27) compared to 3.4% for ED visit by walk-in (rate ratio 1.03, 95% CI 1.03-1.04). Patient and visit characteristics remained consistent (age, gender, triage acuity, number of comorbidities, ED disposition, 30-day repeat ED visits) across the years of study. The majority of transports in 2019 had non-emergent triage scores (60.0%) and were discharged home directly from the ED (63.7%). The largest users were persons aged 65 or greater (43.7%). The majority of transports occurred in urbanized regions, though rural and northern regions experienced similar paramedic transport growth rates. CONCLUSION: There was a substantial increase in the demand for paramedic transportation. Growth in paramedic demand outpaced population growth markedly and may continue to surge alongside population aging. Increases in the rate of paramedic transports per population were not bound to urbanized regions, but were province-wide. Our findings indicate a mounting need to develop innovative solutions to meet the increased demand on paramedic services and to implement long-term strategies across provincial paramedic systems.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIFS: Nous avons examiné l'évolution de l'incidence annuelle du transport paramédical au cours des dix années précédant la COVID-19 par rapport à l'augmentation de la croissance de la population et des visites à l'urgence en personne. MéTHODES: Nous avons mené une étude de cohorte au niveau de la population en utilisant le Système national d'information sur les soins ambulatoires du 1er janvier 2010 au 31 décembre 2019 en Ontario, au Canada. Nous avons inclus tous les patients triés aux urgences qui sont arrivés par transport paramédical ou sans rendez-vous. Nous avons regroupé les régions géographiques en utilisant les limites du Réseau local d'intégration des services de santé. Des statistiques descriptives, des rapports de taux (RR) et des intervalles de confiance à 95% ont été calculés pour examiner les variations des volumes de transport ajustées en fonction de la population. RéSULTATS: L'incidence globale des transports paramédicaux a augmenté de 38.3% (n = 264 134), soit quatre fois plus que la croissance démographique (9.4%) et trois fois plus que la fréquentation des urgences sans rendez-vous (13.4 %). Les taux de transport ajustés à la population ont augmenté de 26.2 % (ratio de taux 1.26, IC à 95% 1.26­1.27), contre 3.4 % pour la visite aux urgences sans rendez-vous (ratio de taux 1.03, IC à 95% 1.03­1.04). Les caractéristiques des patients et des visites sont restées constantes (âge, sexe, acuité du triage, nombre de comorbidités, disposition des urgences, visites répétées aux urgences à 30 jours) au cours des années d'étude. La majorité des transports en 2019 avaient des scores de triage non urgents (60.0 %) et ont été renvoyés chez eux directement du service d'urgence (63.7 %). Les plus grands utilisateurs étaient les personnes âgées de 65 ans ou plus (43.7 %). La majorité des transports ont eu lieu dans les régions urbanisées, bien que les régions rurales et du Nord aient connu des taux de croissance du transport paramédical similaires. CONCLUSION: Il y a eu une augmentation considérable de la demande de transport paramédical. La croissance de la demande de services paramédicaux a nettement dépassé la croissance de la population et pourrait continuer d'augmenter parallèlement au vieillissement de la population. Les augmentations du taux de transports paramédicaux par population n'étaient pas limitées aux régions urbanisées, mais s'étendaient à l'ensemble de la province. Nos constatations indiquent un besoin croissant d'élaborer des solutions novatrices pour répondre à la demande accrue de services paramédicaux et mettre en œuvre des stratégies à long terme dans l'ensemble des systèmes paramédicaux provinciaux.

A Prospective Observational Cohort Comparison of SARS-CoV-2 Seroprevalence Between Paramedics and Matched Blood Donors in Canada During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: SARS-CoV-2 represents an occupational risk to paramedics, who work in uncontrolled environments. We sought to identify the occupation-specific risk to paramedics by comparing their seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection-specific antibodies to that of blood donors in Canada. METHODS: In this prospective cohort study, we performed serology testing (Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid assay) on samples from paramedics and blood donors (January to July 2021) in Canada. Paramedic samples were compared to blood donor samples through 1:1-matched (based on age, sex, location, date of blood collection, and vaccination status) and raking weighted comparisons. We compared the seroprevalence with a risk difference (and 95% confidence interval [CI]) and performed secondary analyses within subgroups defined by vaccination status. RESULTS: The 1:1 match included 1,627 cases per group; in both groups, 723 (44%) were women, with a median age of 38. The raking weighted comparison included 1,713 paramedic samples and 19,515 blood donor samples, with similar characteristics. In the 1:1 match, the seroprevalence was similar (difference 1.2; 95% CI -0.20 to 2.7) between paramedics (5.2%) and blood donors (3.9%). The raking weighted comparison was consistent (difference 0.97; 95% CI -0.10 to 2.0). The unvaccinated paramedic samples, in comparison to the blood donor samples, demonstrated a higher seroprevalence in the 1:1 (difference 5.9; 95% CI 1.8 to 10) and weighted (difference 6.5; 95% CI 1.8 to 10) comparisons. Among vaccinated cases, the between-group seroprevalence was similar. CONCLUSION: Overall, paramedics demonstrated similar evidence of prior SARS-CoV-2 infection to that of blood donors. However, among unvaccinated individuals, evidence of prior infection was higher among paramedics compared to blood donors.

2021 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations: Summary From the Basic Life Support; Advanced Life Support; Neonatal Life Support; Education, Implementation, and Teams; First Aid Task Forces; and the COVID-19 Working Group.

The International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation initiated a continuous review of new, peer-reviewed published cardiopulmonary resuscitation science. This is the fifth annual summary of the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations; a more comprehensive review was done in 2020. This latest summary addresses the most recently published resuscitation evidence reviewed by International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation task force science experts. Topics covered by systematic reviews in this summary include resuscitation topics of video-based dispatch systems; head-up cardiopulmonary resuscitation; early coronary angiography after return of spontaneous circulation; cardiopulmonary resuscitation in the prone patient; cord management at birth for preterm and term infants; devices for administering positive-pressure ventilation at birth; family presence during neonatal resuscitation; self-directed, digitally based basic life support education and training in adults and children; coronavirus disease 2019 infection risk to rescuers from patients in cardiac arrest; and first aid topics, including cooling with water for thermal burns, oral rehydration for exertional dehydration, pediatric tourniquet use, and methods of tick removal. Members from 6 International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation task forces have assessed, discussed, and debated the quality of the evidence, according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation criteria, and their statements include consensus treatment recommendations or good practice statements. Insights into the deliberations of the task forces are provided in Justification and Evidence-to-Decision Framework Highlights sections. In addition, the task forces listed priority knowledge gaps for further research.

Clinical considerations for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest management during COVID-19.

Managing out-of-hospital cardiac arrest requires paramedics to perform multiple aerosol generating medical procedures in an uncontrolled setting. This increases the risk of cross infection during the COVID-19 pandemic. Modifications to conventional protocols are required to balance paramedic safety with optimal patient care and potential stresses on the capacity of critical care resources. Despite this, little specific advice has been published to guide paramedic practice. In this commentary, we highlight challenges and controversies regarding critical decision making around initiation of resuscitation, airway management, mechanical chest compression, and termination of resuscitation. We also discuss suggested triggers for implementation and revocation of recommended protocol changes and present an accompanying paramedic-specific algorithm.