Comparison of the Cerebral Performance Category score and the Health Utilities Index for survivors of cardiac arrest.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: The Cerebral Performance Category score is an easy to use but unvalidated measure of functional outcome after cardiac arrest. We evaluate the comparability of results from the Cerebral Performance Category scale versus those of the validated but more complex Health Utilities Index scale for health-related quality of life. METHODS: This prospective substudy of the Ontario Prehospital Advanced Life Support (OPALS) Study included adult out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients treated in 20 cities. This prospective cohort study included all survivors of out-of-hospital adult cardiac arrest enrolled in phase II (rapid basic life support with defibrillation) and phase III (advanced life support) of the OPALS Study, as well as the intervening run-in phase. Survivors were interviewed at 12 months for Cerebral Performance Category Score and the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 (Health Utilities Index). RESULTS: Of 8,196 eligible out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients between 1995 and 2002, 418 (5.1%) survived to discharge, and 305 (3.7%) completed the Health Utilities Index interview and had Cerebral Performance Category scored at 12 months. The 305 patients had the following data: mean age 63.9 years; male 78.0%; paramedic-witnessed arrest 25.6%; bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation 32.1%; initial rhythm ventricular fibrillation/ventricular tachycardia 86.9%, Cerebral Performance Category 1 267, Cerebral Performance Category 2 26, Cerebral Performance Category 3 12. Overall, the median scores (interquartile range) were Cerebral Performance Category 1 (1 to 1) and Health Utilities Index 0.84 (0.61 to 0.97). The Cerebral Performance Category score ruled out good quality of life (Health Utilities Index >0.80), with a sensitivity of 100% (95% confidence interval [CI] 98% to 100%) and specificity 27.1% (95% CI 20% to 35%); thus, when the Cerebral Performance Category score was 2 or 3, it was unlikely that the Health Utilities Index score would be good. The Cerebral Performance Category score had sensitivity 55.6% (95% CI 42% to 67%) and specificity 96.8% (95% CI 94% to 98%) for predicting poor quality of life (Health Utilities Index >0.40); ie, when Cerebral Performance Category was 1, it was highly unlikely that the Health Utilities Index score would be poor. The weighted kappa was 0.39 and the interclass correlation was 0.51. CONCLUSION: This represents the largest study yet conducted of the performance of the Cerebral Performance Category score in 1-year survivors of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Overall, the Cerebral Performance Category score classified patients well for their quality of life, ruling out a good Health Utilities Index score with high sensitivity and ruling in poor Health Utilities Index score with high specificity. The Cerebral Performance Category is an important tool in that it indicates broad functional outcome categories that are useful for a number of key clinical and research applications but should not be considered a substitute for the Health Utilities Index.

The OPALS Major Trauma Study: impact of advanced life-support on survival and morbidity.

BACKGROUND: To date, the benefit of prehospital advanced life-support programs on trauma-related mortality and morbidity has not been established METHODS: The Ontario Prehospital Advanced Life Support (OPALS) Major Trauma Study was a before-after systemwide controlled clinical trial conducted in 17 cities. We enrolled adult patients who had experienced major trauma in a basic life-support phase and a subsequent advanced life-support phase (during which paramedics were able to perform endotracheal intubation and administer fluids and drugs intravenously). The primary outcome was survival to hospital discharge. RESULTS: Among the 2867 patients enrolled in the basic life-support (n = 1373) and advanced life-support (n = 1494) phases, characteristics were similar, including mean age (44.8 v. 47.5 years), frequency of blunt injury (92.0% v. 91.4%), median injury severity score (24 v. 22) and percentage of patients with Glasgow Coma Scale score less than 9 (27.2% v. 22.1%). Survival did not differ overall (81.1% among patients in the advanced life-support phase v. 81.8% among those in the basic life-support phase; p = 0.65). Among patients with Glasgow Coma Scale score less than 9, survival was lower among those in the advanced life-support phase (50.9% v. 60.0%; p = 0.02). The adjusted odds of death for the advanced life-support v. basic life-support phases were nonsignificant (1.2, 95% confidence interval 0.9-1.7; p = 0.16). INTERPRETATION: The OPALS Major Trauma Study showed that systemwide implementation of full advanced life-support programs did not decrease mortality or morbidity for major trauma patients. We also found that during the advanced life-support phase, mortality was greater among patients with Glasgow Coma Scale scores less than 9. We believe that emergency medical services should carefully re-evaluate the indications for and application of prehospital advanced life-support measures for patients who have experienced major trauma.

Advanced life support for out-of-hospital respiratory distress.

BACKGROUND: Respiratory distress is a common symptom of patients transported to hospitals by emergency medical services (EMS) personnel. The benefit of advanced life support for such patients has not been established. METHODS: The Ontario Prehospital Advanced Life Support (OPALS) Study was a controlled clinical trial that was conducted in 15 cities before and after the implementation of a program to provide advanced life support for patients with out-of-hospital respiratory distress. Paramedics were trained in standard advanced life support, including endotracheal intubation and the administration of intravenous drugs. RESULTS: The clinical characteristics of the 8138 patients in the two phases of the study were similar. During the first phase, no patients were treated by paramedics trained in advanced life support; during the second phase, 56.6% of patients received this treatment. Endotracheal intubation was performed in 1.4% of the patients, and intravenous drugs were administered to 15.0% during the second phase. This phase of the study was also marked by a substantial increase in the use of nebulized salbutamol and sublingual nitroglycerin for the relief of symptoms. The rate of death among all patients decreased significantly, from 14.3% to 12.4% (absolute difference, 1.9%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.4 to 3.4; P=0.01) from the basic-life-support phase to the advanced-life-support phase (adjusted odds ratio, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.1 to 1.5). CONCLUSIONS: The addition of a specific regimen of out-of-hospital advanced-life-support interventions to an existing EMS system that provides basic life support was associated with a decrease in the rate of death of 1.9 percentage points among patients with respiratory distress.

BIPHASIC Trial: a randomized comparison of fixed lower versus escalating higher energy levels for defibrillation in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.

BACKGROUND: There is little clear evidence as to the optimal energy levels for initial and subsequent shocks in biphasic waveform defibrillation. The present study compared fixed lower- and escalating higher-energy regimens for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. METHODS AND RESULTS: The Randomized Controlled Trial to Compare Fixed Versus Escalating Energy Regimens for Biphasic Waveform Defibrillation (BIPHASIC Trial) was a multicenter, randomized controlled trial of 221 out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients who received > or = 1 shock given by biphasic automated external defibrillator devices that were randomly programmed to provide, blindly, fixed lower-energy (150-150-150 J) or escalating higher-energy (200-300-360 J) regimens. Patient mean age was 66.0 years; 79.6% were male. The cardiac arrest was witnessed in 63.8%; a bystander performed cardiopulmonary resuscitation in 23.5%; and initial rhythm was ventricular fibrillation/ventricular tachycardia in 92.3%. The fixed lower- and escalating higher-energy regimen cases were similar for the 106 multishock patients and for all 221 patients. In the primary analysis in multishock patients, conversion rates differed significantly (fixed lower, 24.7%, versus escalating higher, 36.6%; P=0.035; absolute difference, 11.9%; 95% CI, 1.2 to 24.4). Ventricular fibrillation termination rates also were significantly different between groups (71.2% versus 82.5%; P=0.027; absolute difference, 11.3%; 95% CI, 1.6 to 20.9). For the secondary analysis of first shock success, conversion rates were similar between the fixed lower and escalating higher study groups (38.4% versus 36.7%; P=0.92), as were ventricular fibrillation termination rates (86.8% versus 88.8%; P=0.81). There were no distinguishable differences between regimens for survival outcomes or adverse effects. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first randomized trial to compare fixed lower and escalating higher biphasic energy regimens in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, and it demonstrated higher rates of ventricular fibrillation conversion and termination with an escalating higher-energy regimen for patients requiring multiple shocks. These results suggest that patients in ventricular fibrillation benefit from higher biphasic energy levels if multiple defibrillation shocks are required.

What are the etiology and epidemiology of out-of-hospital pediatric cardiopulmonary arrest in Ontario, Canada?

BACKGROUND: Pediatric cardiopulmonary arrest (CPA) outside of the hospital has a very high mortality rate. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the etiology and initial compromise of pediatric CPA cases in hopes of developing strategies to improve out-of-hospital resuscitation. METHODS: The Ontario Prehospital Advanced Life Support (OPALS) study was a large multicenter initiative to evaluate the impact of emergency medical services (EMS) programs on 17 communities with 40,000 critically ill and injured patients who were older than 11 years. As part of this study, the authors conducted a retrospective observational cohort study that included all children younger than 18 years of age with out-of-hospital CPA, during an 11-year period from 1991-2002. CPA was defined as patient being pulseless, apneic, and requiring chest compressions. Data were collected from ambulance call reports and centralized dispatch data and were reviewed by two independent investigators. RESULTS: There were 503 children with CPA in the sample. Mean age was 5.6 years (range, 0-17 yr); 58.4% of patients were male, and 37.8% were younger than 1 year of age. Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) first was started by a bystander in 32.4% of cases, whereas 66.0% were unwitnessed arrests. Initial rhythms were asystole 77.2% of the time, pulseless electrical activity 16.4% of the time, and ventricular fibrillation or ventricular tachycardia 4% of the time. Annual incidence was 9.1/100,000 children. CPA was witnessed in 34.0% of cases; 80.7% of these were bystander-witnessed, and 18.1% were EMS-witnessed. Primary pathogenic cause of arrest was medical in 61.2% of cases, trauma in 37.2% of cases, and indeterminate in 1.6% of cases. Initial underlying physiologic compromise of witnessed arrests was judged to be respiratory in 39.8% of cases, sudden collapse (presumed electrical) in 16.4% of cases, progressive shock in 1.2% of cases, and indeterminate in 42.6% of cases. Presumed etiology was trauma, 37.6%; sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), 20.3%; and respiratory disease, 11.6%, most commonly. Survival to hospital discharge was 2.0%. CONCLUSIONS: This is one of the largest population-based, prospective cohorts of pediatric CPA reported to date, and it reveals that most pediatric arrests are unwitnessed and receive no bystander CPR. Those that are witnessed most often are caused by respiratory arrests or trauma. Trauma, SIDS, and respiratory disease are the most common etiologies overall. These data are vital to planning large resuscitation trials looking at specific interventions (i.e., increasing bystander CPR) and highlight the need for better strategies for prevention and early recognition.

Advanced cardiac life support in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.

BACKGROUND: The Ontario Prehospital Advanced Life Support (OPALS) Study tested the incremental effect on the rate of survival after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest of adding a program of advanced life support to a program of rapid defibrillation. METHODS: This multicenter, controlled clinical trial was conducted in 17 cities before and after advanced-life-support programs were instituted and enrolled 5638 patients who had had cardiac arrest outside the hospital. Of those patients, 1391 were enrolled during the rapid-defibrillation phase and 4247 during the subsequent advanced-life-support phase. Paramedics were trained in standard advanced life support, which includes endotracheal intubation and the administration of intravenous drugs. RESULTS: From the rapid-defibrillation phase to the advanced-life-support phase, the rate of admission to a hospital increased significantly (10.9 percent vs. 14.6 percent, P<0.001), but the rate of survival to hospital discharge did not (5.0 percent vs. 5.1 percent, P=0.83). The multivariate odds ratio for survival after advanced life support was 1.1 (95 percent confidence interval, 0.8 to 1.5); after an arrest witnessed by a bystander, 4.4 (95 percent confidence interval, 3.1 to 6.4); after cardiopulmonary resuscitation administered by a bystander, 3.7 (95 percent confidence interval, 2.5 to 5.4); and after rapid defibrillation, 3.4 (95 percent confidence interval, 1.4 to 8.4). There was no improvement in the rate of survival with the use of advanced life support in any subgroup. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of advanced-life-support interventions did not improve the rate of survival after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in a previously optimized emergency-medical-services system of rapid defibrillation. In order to save lives, health care planners should make cardiopulmonary resuscitation by citizens and rapid-defibrillation responses a priority for the resources of emergency-medical-services systems.

Nontraumatic out-of-hospital hypotension predicts inhospital mortality.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Out-of-hospital hypotension may signify need for intensive resuscitation and rapid diagnosis on emergency department (ED) arrival. We hypothesized that nontraumatic out-of-hospital hypotension confers risk of inhospital mortality. METHODS: This was a multicenter study of ambulance-transported, nontrauma, non-cardiopulmonary resuscitation patients conducted at 2 venues: (1) a cross-sectional risk assessment study of high-priority medical transports at a US metropolitan county; and (2) a Canadian prospective multicenter cohort study of patients with respiratory distress. Data at both venues were extracted from prospectively recorded, standardized run sheets by either a physician or a paramedic. Data extraction and analysis at each venue were conducted independently. Exposures to hypotension were defined as age older than 17 years old, systolic blood pressure less than 100 mm Hg during transport, and 1 or more of 10 predefined symptoms of circulatory insufficiency. Nonexposures to hypotension had the same definition as exposures, except the systolic blood pressure had to be more than 100 mm Hg during the entire out-of-hospital transport. The main outcome variable was inhospital mortality. RESULTS: At venue 1, of 3,128 transports, 395 (13%) exposures and 395 nonexposures were identified. Inhospital mortality of exposures was 26% versus 8% for nonexposures (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 4.6; 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.0 to 5.9). At venue 2, of 7,679 transports, 532 exposures (7%) and 7,147 nonexposures were identified. Out-of-hospital exposure to hypotension conferred a mortality rate of 32% versus 11% for nonexposures (OR 3.0; 95% CI 2.4 to 3.7), representing a sensitivity of 18% and a specificity of 95%. CONCLUSION: The inhospital mortality rate after out-of-hospital, nontraumatic hypotension is high and reproducible. Future research should focus on ED clinical protocols to ensure appropriate resuscitation and investigation of etiology of out-of-hospital hypotension.