Incidence, characteristics and complications of dispatcher-assisted cardiopulmonary resuscitation initiated in patients not in cardiac arrest.

AIM: Dispatcher-assisted cardiopulmonary resuscitation (DA-CPR) can increase bystander CPR rates and improve outcomes in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). Despite the use of protocols, dispatchers may falsely recognise some cases to be in cardiac arrest. Hence, this study aimed to find the incidence of DA-CPR initiated for non-OHCA cases, its characteristics and clinical outcomes in the Singapore population. METHODS: This was a multi-centre, observational study of all dispatcher-recognised cardiac arrests cases between January to December 2017 involving three tertiary hospitals in Singapore. Data was obtained from the Pan-Asian Resuscitation Outcomes Study cohort. Audio review of dispatch calls from the national emergency ambulance service were conducted and information about patients' clinical outcomes were prospectively collected from health records. Univariate analysis was performed to determine factors associated with in-hospital mortality among non-OHCA patients who received DA-CPR. RESULTS: Of the 821 patients recognised as having OHCA 328 (40.0%) were not in cardiac arrest and 173 (52.7%) of these received DA-CPR. No complications from chest compressions were found from hospital records. The top diagnoses of non-OHCA patients were cerebrovascular accidents (CVA), syncope and infection. Only final diagnoses of CVA (aOR 20.68), infection (aOR 17.34) and myocardial infarction (aOR 32.19) were significantly associated with in-hospital mortality. CONCLUSION: In this study, chest compressions initiated on patients not in cardiac arrest by dispatchers did not result in any reported complications and was not associated with in-hospital mortality. This provides reassurance for the continued implementation of DA-CPR.

Comparative outcomes of needlescopic, single-incision laparoscopic, standard laparoscopic, mini-laparotomy, and open cholecystectomy: A systematic review and network meta-analysis of 96 randomized controlled trials with 11,083 patients.

BACKGROUND: Most randomized trials on minimally invasive cholecystectomy have been conducted with standard (3/4-port) laparoscopic or open cholecystectomy serving as the control group. However, there exists a dearth of head-to-head trials that directly compare different minimally invasive techniques for cholecystectomy (eg, single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus needlescopic cholecystectomy). Hence, it remains largely unknown how the different minimally invasive cholecystectomy techniques fare up against one another. METHODS: To minimize selection and confounding biases, only randomized controlled trials were considered for inclusion. Perioperative outcomes were compared using frequentist network meta-analyses. The interpretation of the results was driven by treatment effects and surface under the cumulative ranking curve values. A sensitivity analysis was also undertaken focusing on a subgroup of randomized controlled trials, which recruited patients with only uncomplicated cholecystitis. RESULTS: Ninety-six eligible randomized controlled trials comprising 11,083 patients were identified. Risk of intra-abdominal infection or abscess, bile duct injury, bile leak, and open conversion did not differ significantly between minimally invasive techniques. Needlescopic cholecystectomy was associated with the lowest rates of wound infection (surface under the cumulative ranking curve value = 0.977) with an odds ratio of 0.095 (95% confidence interval: 0.023-0.39), 0.32 (95% confidence interval: 0.11-0.98), 0.33 (95% confidence interval: 0.11-0.99), 0.36 (95% confidence interval: 0.14-0.98) compared to open cholecystectomy, single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy, mini-laparotomy, and standard laparoscopic cholecystectomy, respectively. Mini-laparotomy was associated with the shortest operative time (surface under the cumulative ranking curve value = 0.981) by a mean difference of 22.20 (95% confidence interval: 13.79-30.62), 12.17 (95% confidence interval: 1.80-22.54), 9.07 (95% confidence interval: 1.59-16.54), and 8.36 (95% confidence interval: -1.79 to 18.52) minutes when compared to single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy, needlescopic cholecystectomy, standard laparoscopic cholecystectomy, and open cholecystectomy, respectively. Needlescopic cholecystectomy appeared to be associated with the shortest hospitalization (surface under the cumulative ranking curve value = 0.717) and lowest postoperative pain (surface under the cumulative ranking curve value = 0.928). CONCLUSION: Perioperative outcomes differed across minimally invasive techniques and, in some instances, afforded superior outcomes compared to standard laparoscopic cholecystectomy. These findings suggest that there may be equipoise for exploring further the utility of novel minimally invasive techniques and potentially incorporating them into the general surgery training curriculum.