Association Between Defibrillation Using LIFEPAK 15 or ZOLL X Series and Survival Outcomes in Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest: A Nationwide Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Defibrillation is essential for achieving return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) following out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) with shockable rhythms. This study aimed to investigate if the type of defibrillator used was associated with ROSC in OHCA. METHODS AND RESULTS: This study included adult patients with OHCA from the Danish Cardiac Arrest Registry from 2016 to 2021 with at least 1 defibrillation by the emergency medical services. We used multivariable logistic regression and a difference-in-difference analysis, including all patients with or without emergency medical services shock to assess the causal inference of using the different defibrillator models (LIFEPAK or ZOLL) for OHCA defibrillation. Among 6516 patients, 77% were male, the median age (quartile 1; quartile 3) was 70 (59; 79), and 57% achieved ROSC. In total, 5514 patients (85%) were defibrillated using LIFEPAK (ROSC: 56%) and 1002 patients (15%) were defibrillated using ZOLL (ROSC: 63%). Patients defibrillated using ZOLL had an increased adjusted odds ratio (aOR) for ROSC compared with LIFEPAK (aOR, 1.22 [95% CI, 1.04-1.43]). There was no significant difference in 30-day mortality (aOR, 1.11 [95% CI, 0.95-1.30]). Patients without emergency medical services defibrillation, but treated by ZOLL-equipped emergency medical services, had a nonsignificant aOR for ROSC compared with LIFEPAK (aOR, 1.10 [95% CI, 0.99-1.23]) and the difference-in-difference analysis was not statistically significant (OR, 1.10 [95% CI, 0.91-1.34]). CONCLUSIONS: Defibrillation using ZOLL X Series was associated with increased odds for ROSC compared with defibrillation using LIFEPAK 15 for patients with OHCA. However, a difference-in-difference analysis suggested that other factors may be responsible for the observed association.

Intravenous vs. intraosseous vascular access during out-of-hospital cardiac arrest - protocol for a randomised clinical trial.

Objective: During cardiac arrest, current guidelines recommend attempting intravenous access first and to consider intraosseous access if intravenous access is unsuccessful or impossible. However, these recommendations are only based on very low-certainty evidence. Therefore, the "Intravenous vs Intraosseous Vascular Access During Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest" (IVIO) trial aims to determine whether there is a difference in patient outcomes depending on the type of vascular access attempted during out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. This current article describes the clinical IVIO trial. Methods: The IVIO trial is an investigator-initiated, randomised trial of intravenous vs. intraosseous vascular access during adult non-traumatic out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in Denmark. The intervention will consist of minimum two attempts (if unsuccessful on the first attempt) to successfully establish intravenous or intraosseous vascular access during cardiac arrest. The intraosseous group will be further randomised to the humeral or tibial site. The primary outcome is sustained return of spontaneous circulation and key secondary outcomes include survival and survival with a favourable neurological outcome at 30 days. A total of 1,470 patients will be included. Results: The trial started in March 2022 and the last patient is anticipated to be included in the spring of 2024. The primary results will be reported after 90-day follow-up and are anticipated in mid-2024. Conclusion: The current article describes the design of the Danish IVIO trial. The findings of this trial will help inform future guidelines for selecting the optimal vascular access route during out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.

Effect of calcium vs. placebo on long-term outcomes in patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.

OBJECTIVE: The Calcium for Out-of-hospital Cardiac Arrest (COCA) trial was a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial of calcium for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. The primary and secondary outcomes have been reported previously. This article describes the long-term outcomes of the trial. METHODS: Patients aged ≥18 years were included if they had a non-traumatic out-of-hospital cardiac arrest during which they received adrenaline. The trial drug consisted of calcium chloride (5 mmol) or saline placebo given after the first dose of adrenaline and again after the second dose of adrenaline for a maximum of two doses. This article presents pre-specified analyses of 6-month and 1-year outcomes for survival, survival with a favorable neurological outcome (modified Rankin Scale of 3 or less), and health-related quality of life. RESULTS: A total of 391 patients were analyzed. At 1 year, 9 patients (4.7%) were alive in the calcium group while 18 (9.1%) were alive in the placebo group (risk ratio 0.51; 95% confidence interval 0.24, 1.09). At 1 year, 7 patients (3.6%) were alive with a favorable neurological outcome in the calcium group while 17 (8.6%) were alive with a favorable neurological outcome in the placebo group (risk ratio 0.42; 95% confidence interval 0.18, 0.97). Outcomes for health-related quality of life likewise suggested harm of calcium but results were imprecise with wide confidence intervals. CONCLUSIONS: Effect estimates remained constant over time suggesting harm of calcium but with wide confidence intervals. The results do not support calcium administration during out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov-number, NCT04153435.

Prehospital fluid therapy in patients with suspected infection: a survey of ambulance personnel's practice.

BACKGROUND: Fluid therapy in patients with suspected infection is controversial, and it is not known whether fluid treatment administered in the prehospital setting is beneficial. In the absence of evidence-based guidelines for prehospital fluid therapy for patients with suspected infection, Emergency Medical Services (EMS) personnel are challenged on when and how to initiate such therapy. This study aimed to assess EMS personnel's decision-making in prehospital fluid therapy, including triggers for initiating fluid and fluid volumes, as well as the need for education and evidence-based guidelines on prehospital fluid therapy in patients with suspected infection. METHODS: An online survey concerning fluid administration in prehospital patients with suspected infection was distributed to all EMS personnel in the Central Denmark Region, including ambulance clinicians and prehospital critical care anaesthesiologists (PCCA). The survey consisted of sections concerning academic knowledge, statements about fluid administration, triggers to evaluate patient needs for intravenous fluid, and clinical scenarios. RESULTS: In total, 468/807 (58%) ambulance clinicians and 106/151 (70%) PCCA responded to the survey. Of the respondents, 73% (n = 341) of the ambulance clinicians and 100% (n = 106) of the PCCA felt confident about administering fluids to prehospital patients with infections. However, both groups primarily based their fluid-related decisions on "clinical intuition". Ambulance clinicians named the most frequently faced challenges in fluid therapy as "Unsure whether the patient needs fluid" and "Unsure about the volume of fluid the patient needs". The five most frequently used triggers for evaluating fluid needs were blood pressure, history taking, skin turgor, capillary refill time, and shock index, the last of which only applied to ambulance clinicians. In the scenarios, the majority administered 500 ml to a normotensive woman with suspected sepsis and 1000 ml to a woman with suspected sepsis-related hypotension. Moreover, 97% (n = 250) of the ambulance clinicians strongly agreed or agreed that they were interested in more education about fluid therapy in patients with suspected infection. CONCLUSION: The majority of ambulance clinicians and PCCA based their fluid administration on "clinical intuition". They faced challenges deciding on fluid volumes and individual fluid needs. Thus, they were eager to learn more and requested research and evidence-based guidelines.

Effect of Intravenous or Intraosseous Calcium vs Saline on Return of Spontaneous Circulation in Adults With Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: It is unclear whether administration of calcium has a beneficial effect in patients with cardiac arrest. Objective: To determine whether administration of calcium during out-of-hospital cardiac arrest improves return of spontaneous circulation in adults. Design, Setting, and Participants: This double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial included 397 adult patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest and was conducted in the Central Denmark Region between January 20, 2020, and April 15, 2021. The last 90-day follow-up was on July 15, 2021. Interventions: The intervention consisted of up to 2 intravenous or intraosseous doses with 5 mmol of calcium chloride (n = 197) or saline (n = 200). The first dose was administered immediately after the first dose of epinephrine. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was sustained return of spontaneous circulation. The secondary outcomes included survival and a favorable neurological outcome (modified Rankin Scale score of 0-3) at 30 days and 90 days. Results: Based on a planned interim analysis of 383 patients, the steering committee stopped the trial early due to concerns about harm in the calcium group. Of 397 adult patients randomized, 391 were included in the analyses (193 in the calcium group and 198 in the saline group; mean age, 68 [SD, 14] years; 114 [29%] were female). There was no loss to follow-up. There were 37 patients (19%) in the calcium group who had sustained return of spontaneous circulation compared with 53 patients (27%) in the saline group (risk ratio, 0.72 [95% CI, 0.49 to 1.03]; risk difference, -7.6% [95% CI, -16% to 0.8%]; P = .09). At 30 days, 10 patients (5.2%) in the calcium group and 18 patients (9.1%) in the saline group were alive (risk ratio, 0.57 [95% CI, 0.27 to 1.18]; risk difference, -3.9% [95% CI, -9.4% to 1.3%]; P = .17). A favorable neurological outcome at 30 days was observed in 7 patients (3.6%) in the calcium group and in 15 patients (7.6%) in the saline group (risk ratio, 0.48 [95% CI, 0.20 to 1.12]; risk difference, -4.0% [95% CI, -8.9% to 0.7%]; P = .12). Among the patients with calcium values measured who had return of spontaneous circulation, 26 (74%) in the calcium group and 1 (2%) in the saline group had hypercalcemia. Conclusions and Relevance: Among adults with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, treatment with intravenous or intraosseous calcium compared with saline did not significantly improve sustained return of spontaneous circulation. These results do not support the administration of calcium during out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in adults. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04153435.

Pre-charging the defibrillator before rhythm analysis reduces hands-off time in patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest with shockable rhythm.

AIM: To evaluate the effect of pre-charging the defibrillator before rhythm analysis on hands-off time in patients suffering from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest with shockable rhythm. METHODS: Pre-charging was implemented in the Emergency Medical Service in the Central Denmark Region in June 2018. Training consisted of hands-on simulation scenarios, e-learning material, and written instructions. Data were extracted from the Danish Cardiac Arrest Registry for a 14-month period spanning the implementation of pre-charging. Patients having received at least one shock were included. Transthoracic impedance data were analysed. We recorded hands-off time and peri-shock pauses for all defibrillation procedures and the total hands-off fraction for all cardiac arrests. RESULTS: Impedance and outcome data were available for 178 patients. 523 defibrillation procedures were analysed. The pre-charge method was associated with shorter median hands-off time per defibrillation procedure (7.6 (IQR 5.8-9.9) vs. 12.6 (IQR 10-16.4) seconds, p < 0.001) but longer pre-shock pause (4 (IQR 2.7-6.1) vs 1.7 (IQR 1.2-3) seconds, p < 0.001) when compared to the current guideline-recommended defibrillation method. The total hands-off fraction per cardiac arrest was reduced after implementation of the pre-charge method (16.5% vs. 20.4%, p = 0.003). No increase in shocks to non-shockable rhythms or personnel was registered. Patients who received only pre-charge defibrillations had an increased odds ratio of return of spontaneous circulation (aOR 2.91; 95%CI 1.09-7.8, p = 0.03). CONCLUSION: Pre-charging the defibrillator reduced hands-off time during defibrillation procedures, reduces the total hands-off fraction and may be associated with increased return of spontaneous circulation in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest with shockable rhythm.