Effect of a Strategy of Initial Laryngeal Tube Insertion vs Endotracheal Intubation on 72-Hour Survival in Adults With Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Emergency medical services (EMS) commonly perform endotracheal intubation (ETI) or insertion of supraglottic airways, such as the laryngeal tube (LT), on patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). The optimal method for OHCA advanced airway management is unknown. Objective: To compare the effectiveness of a strategy of initial LT insertion vs initial ETI in adults with OHCA. Design, Setting, and Participants: Multicenter pragmatic cluster-crossover clinical trial involving EMS agencies from the Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium. The trial included 3004 adults with OHCA and anticipated need for advanced airway management who were enrolled from December 1, 2015, to November 4, 2017. The final date of follow-up was November 10, 2017. Interventions: Twenty-seven EMS agencies were randomized in 13 clusters to initial airway management strategy with LT (n = 1505 patients) or ETI (n = 1499 patients), with crossover to the alternate strategy at 3- to 5-month intervals. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was 72-hour survival. Secondary outcomes included return of spontaneous circulation, survival to hospital discharge, favorable neurological status at hospital discharge (Modified Rankin Scale score ≤3), and key adverse events. Results: Among 3004 enrolled patients (median [interquartile range] age, 64 [53-76] years, 1829 [60.9%] men), 3000 were included in the primary analysis. Rates of initial airway success were 90.3% with LT and 51.6% with ETI. Seventy-two hour survival was 18.3% in the LT group vs 15.4% in the ETI group (adjusted difference, 2.9% [95% CI, 0.2%-5.6%]; P = .04). Secondary outcomes in the LT group vs ETI group were return of spontaneous circulation (27.9% vs 24.3%; adjusted difference, 3.6% [95% CI, 0.3%-6.8%]; P = .03); hospital survival (10.8% vs 8.1%; adjusted difference, 2.7% [95% CI, 0.6%-4.8%]; P = .01); and favorable neurological status at discharge (7.1% vs 5.0%; adjusted difference, 2.1% [95% CI, 0.3%-3.8%]; P = .02). There were no significant differences in oropharyngeal or hypopharyngeal injury (0.2% vs 0.3%), airway swelling (1.1% vs 1.0%), or pneumonia or pneumonitis (26.1% vs 22.3%). Conclusions and Relevance: Among adults with OHCA, a strategy of initial LT insertion was associated with significantly greater 72-hour survival compared with a strategy of initial ETI. These findings suggest that LT insertion may be considered as an initial airway management strategy in patients with OHCA, but limitations of the pragmatic design, practice setting, and ETI performance characteristics suggest that further research is warranted. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02419573.

Amiodarone, Lidocaine, or Placebo in Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest.

BACKGROUND: Antiarrhythmic drugs are used commonly in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest for shock-refractory ventricular fibrillation or pulseless ventricular tachycardia, but without proven survival benefit. METHODS: In this randomized, double-blind trial, we compared parenteral amiodarone, lidocaine, and saline placebo, along with standard care, in adults who had nontraumatic out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, shock-refractory ventricular fibrillation or pulseless ventricular tachycardia after at least one shock, and vascular access. Paramedics enrolled patients at 10 North American sites. The primary outcome was survival to hospital discharge; the secondary outcome was favorable neurologic function at discharge. The per-protocol (primary analysis) population included all randomly assigned participants who met eligibility criteria and received any dose of a trial drug and whose initial cardiac-arrest rhythm of ventricular fibrillation or pulseless ventricular tachycardia was refractory to shock. RESULTS: In the per-protocol population, 3026 patients were randomly assigned to amiodarone (974), lidocaine (993), or placebo (1059); of those, 24.4%, 23.7%, and 21.0%, respectively, survived to hospital discharge. The difference in survival rate for amiodarone versus placebo was 3.2 percentage points (95% confidence interval [CI], -0.4 to 7.0; P=0.08); for lidocaine versus placebo, 2.6 percentage points (95% CI, -1.0 to 6.3; P=0.16); and for amiodarone versus lidocaine, 0.7 percentage points (95% CI, -3.2 to 4.7; P=0.70). Neurologic outcome at discharge was similar in the three groups. There was heterogeneity of treatment effect with respect to whether the arrest was witnessed (P=0.05); active drugs were associated with a survival rate that was significantly higher than the rate with placebo among patients with bystander-witnessed arrest but not among those with unwitnessed arrest. More amiodarone recipients required temporary cardiac pacing than did recipients of lidocaine or placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, neither amiodarone nor lidocaine resulted in a significantly higher rate of survival or favorable neurologic outcome than the rate with placebo among patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest due to initial shock-refractory ventricular fibrillation or pulseless ventricular tachycardia. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01401647.).

Success Rates for Notification of Enrollment in Exception From Informed Consent Clinical Trials.

OBJECTIVES: Exception from informed consent (EFIC) for research in emergency settings requires investigators to notify enrolled subjects, family members, or legally authorized representatives about inclusion in the study. We examined the success rate of a notification strategy including mail services for subjects enrolled in EFIC trials. METHODS: We describe notification attempts for subjects in three out-of-hospital cardiac arrest clinical trials in both urban and rural areas around Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, between the years 2000 and 2014. We examined the time required to notify subjects and the success of contacting subjects or their representatives when notified in person (if alive), by mail (if alive and unable to reach in person), or by mail (if the subject was deceased). We characterized comments received from subjects or their representatives as positive, neutral, or negative. RESULTS: We attempted notification on a total of 1,912 subjects, 1,762 by mail, and 163 in person. Of these, 1,767 (92%) notification forms were successfully delivered, and 431 (24%) were signed and returned. Only 16 subjects or representatives (0.91%) requested to withdraw from the study. In-person notifications were more likely to be signed than mailed notifications (69% vs. 20%; p < 0.001). A total of 3.2% of recipients contacted investigators by phone or letter in response to notifications, but only five recipients expressed negative attitudes toward the trial. Ninety percent of subjects were notified within 35 days of the incident. Time to notification was shorter for in person (median = 5 days, interquartile range [IQR] = 2 to 10 days) than for deceased and mailed (11 days, IQR = 8 to 14 days) or alive and mailed (20 days, IQR = 14 to 29 days). CONCLUSIONS: It is possible to successfully notify recipients of enrollment in a study using EFIC over 90% of the time within 35 days, although only 24% of recipients will sign and return a form. Fewer than 1% of subjects withdraw from the study, and fewer than 5% contact investigators, usually for neutral reasons.