External Validation of the Simple NULL-PLEASE Clinical Score in Predicting Outcome of Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest.

BACKGROUND: Rapid clinical decision-making on further management of patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest may be challenging. Recently, a "futility" score (NULL-PLEASE) incorporating multiple adverse resuscitation features (Nonshockable rhythm, Unwitnessed arrest, Long no-flow or Long low-flow period, blood PH <7.2, Lactate >7.0 mmol/L, End-stage chronic kidney disease on dialysis, Age ≥85 years, Still resuscitation, and Extracardiac cause) has been proposed to help identify patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest unlikely to survive; however, external independent score validation is lacking. METHODS: We retrospectively validated the NULL-PLEASE predictive ability for early in-hospital outcome of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in a single-center cohort of 547 consecutive patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest who were admitted from April 2013 to October 2016 (mean age, 66.3 ± 13.2 years); 227 patients (41.5%) died. Because pH and lactate were inconsistently measured, a modified NULL-PLEASE score excluding both variables was calculated as the principal analysis. A sensitivity analysis included the subgroup with pH data available (n = 177). RESULTS: Long low-flow period and age ≥85 years were independently associated with fatal outcome (both P < .001). Patients with a modified NULL-PLEASE score of ≥5 had a 3.3-fold greater risk of fatal outcome compared with a score of 0 to 4 (odds ratio, 3.34; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.29-4.89; P < .001); 77% of nonsurvivors had a score ≥5; NULL-PLEASE showed a modest predictive ability for fatal outcome (c-statistic 0.658; 95% CI, 0.613-0.704; P < .001). Sensitivity analysis yielded similar results, with 88% of nonsurvivors having a score ≥5. CONCLUSIONS: The NULL-PLEASE score was predictive for early in-hospital outcome of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, with a 3.3-fold greater odds for fatal outcome at the score values of ≥5.

The Sandwell Project: a controlled evaluation of a programme of targeted screening for prevention of cardiovascular disease in primary care.

BACKGROUND: A pilot cardiovascular disease prevention project was implemented in the inner-city West Midlands. It was evaluated by comparing its effectiveness to a control group where full implementation was delayed by a year. METHODS: Cardiovascular risk factor data were extracted on all untreated patients 35 to 74 years old from electronic medical databases in six general practices. A best estimate of ten-year CVD risk cardiovascular risk was calculated on all patients using the extracted risk factor data. Default risk-factor values were used for all missing risk factor data. High risk patients were thus identified. In four practices a project nurse systematically invited, assessed and referred high risk patients for treatment. Two control practices were provided with a list of their high risk patients. The outcomes were the proportions of untreated high-risk patients who were assessed, identified as eligible for treatment and treated under two strategies for identifying and treating such patients in primary care. RESULTS: Of all high-risk patients suitable for inclusion in the project, 40.6% (95% CI: 36.7 to 45.7%) of patients in intervention practices were started on treatment were started on at least one treatment, compared to 12.7% (95% CI: 9.8% to 16.1%) in control practices. CONCLUSION: A strategy using electronic primary care records to identify high risk patients for CVD prevention works best with a process for acting on information, ensuring patients are invited, assessed and treated.

A 'Reveal'ing diagnosis.

The present case report describes a 54-year-old woman with recurrent syncope of undetermined etiology. Despite several cardiological and neurological investigations, no firm diagnosis was established until an insertable loop recorder (REVEAL Plus Model 9526, Medtronic Inc., Minneapolis, MN, USA) revealed muscle twitch artifact secondary to a seizure disorder.