Latest in Resuscitation Research: Highlights From the 2021 American Heart Association's Resuscitation Science Symposium.

Publication of the 2015 American Heart Association (AHA) Guidelines Update for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) and Emergency Cardiovascular Care (ECC) marks 49 years since the first CPR guidelines were published in 1966 by an Ad Hoc Committee on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation established by the National Academy of Sciences of the National Research Council.1 Since that time, periodic revisions to the Guidelines have been published by the AHA in 1974,2 1980,3 1986,4 1992,5 2000,6 2005,7 2010,8 and now 2015. The 2010 AHA Guidelines for CPR and ECC provided a comprehensive review of evidence-based recommendations for resuscitation, ECC, and first aid. The 2015 AHA Guidelines Update for CPR and ECC focuses on topics with significant new science or ongoing controversy, and so serves as an update to the 2010 AHA Guidelines for CPR and ECC rather than a complete revision of the Guidelines. The purpose of this Executive Summary is to provide an overview of the new or revised recommendations contained in the 2015 Guidelines Update. This document does not contain extensive reference citations; the reader is referred to Parts 3 through 9 for more detailed review of the scientific evidence and the recommendations on which they are based. There have been several changes to the organization of the 2015 Guidelines Update compared with 2010. “Part 4: Systems of Care and Continuous Quality Improvement” is an important new Part that focuses on the integrated structures and processes that are necessary to create systems of care for both in-hospital and out-of-hospital resuscitation capable of measuring and improving quality and patient outcomes. This Part replaces the “CPR Overview” Part of the 2010 Guidelines. Another new Part of the 2015 Guidelines Update is “Part 14: Education,” which focuses on evidence-based recommendations to facilitate widespread, consistent, efficient and effective implementation …

Changes to the European Resuscitation Council guidelines for adult resuscitation

Over the past 13 years, survival to discharge from pediatric in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA) has markedly improved. From 2001 to 2013, rates of return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) from IHCA increased significantly from 39% to 77%, and survival to hospital discharge improved from 24% to 36% to 43% (Girotra et al1 and personal communication with Paul Chan, MD, MSc, April 3, 2015). In a single center, implementation of an intensive care unit (ICU)–based interdisciplinary debriefing program improved survival with favorable neurologic outcome from 29% to 50%.2 Furthermore, new data show that prolonged cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is not futile: 12% of patients receiving CPR in IHCA for more than 35 minutes survived to discharge, and 60% of the survivors had a favorable neurologic outcome.3 This improvement in survival rate from IHCA can be attributed to multiple factors, including emphasis on high-quality CPR and advances in post-resuscitation care. Over the past decade, the percent of cardiac arrests occurring in an ICU setting has increased (87% to 91% in 2000 to 2003 to 94% to 96% in 2004 to 2010).4 While rates of survival from pulseless electrical activity and asystole have increased, there has been no change in survival rates from in-hospital ventricular fibrillation (VF) or pulseless ventricular tachycardia (pVT). Conversely, survival from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) has not improved as dramatically over the past 5 years. Data from 11 US and Canadian hospital emergency medical service systems (the Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium) during 2005 to 2007 showed age-dependent discharge survival rates of 3.3% for infants (less than 1 year), 9.1% for children (1 to 11 years), and 8.9% for adolescents (12 to 19 years).5 More recently published data (through 2012) from this network demonstrate 8.3% survival to hospital discharge across all age groups, with 10.5% survival for children …

Resuscitation highlights in 2013: Part 2

Part 1: Executive Summary: 2020 American Heart Association Guidelines for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care.

Conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) consisting of manual chest compressions with rescue breaths is inherently inefficient with respect to generating cardiac output. A variety of alternatives and adjuncts to conventional CPR have been developed, with the aim of enhancing perfusion during resuscitation from cardiac arrest. Since the publication of the 2010 American Heart Association (AHA) Guidelines for CPR and Emergency Cardiovascular Care (ECC),1 a number of clinical trials have provided additional data on the effectiveness of these alternatives and adjuncts. Compared with conventional CPR, many of these techniques and devices require specialized equipment and training. Some have only been tested in highly selected subgroups of cardiac arrest patients; this context must be considered when rescuers or healthcare systems are considering implementation. ### Methodology The recommendations in this 2015 AHA Guidelines Update for CPR and ECC are based on an extensive evidence review process that was begun by the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation (ILCOR) after the publication of the ILCOR 2010 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations 2,3 and was completed in February 2015.4,5 In this in-depth evidence review process, the ILCOR Advanced Life Support (ALS) Task Force examined topics and then generated a prioritized list of questions for systematic review. Questions were first formulated in PICO (population, intervention, comparator, outcome) format,6 search strategies and criteria for inclusion and exclusion of articles were defined, and then a search for relevant articles was performed. The evidence was evaluated by the ILCOR ALS Task Force by using the standardized methodological approach proposed by the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group.7 The quality of the evidence was categorized based on the study methodologies and the 5 core GRADE domains of risk of bias, inconsistency, indirectness, imprecision, and …

Extracorporeal Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation: Prehospital or In-Hospital Cannulation?

As with other Parts of the 2015 American Heart Association (AHA) Guidelines Update for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) and Emergency Cardiovascular Care (ECC), Part 5 is based on the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation (ILCOR) 2015 international evidence review process. ILCOR Basic Life Support (BLS) Task Force members identified and prioritized topics and questions with the newest or most controversial evidence, or those that were thought to be most important for resuscitation. This 2015 Guidelines Update is based on the systematic reviews and recommendations of the 2015 International Consensus on CPR and ECC Science With Treatment Recommendations , “Part 3: Adult Basic Life Support and Automated External Defibrillation.”1,2 In the online version of this document, live links are provided so the reader can connect directly to the systematic reviews on the ILCOR Scientific Evidence Evaluation and Review System (SEERS) website. These links are indicated by a combination of letters and numbers (eg, BLS 740). We encourage readers to use the links and review the evidence and appendix. As with all AHA Guidelines, each 2015 recommendation is labeled with a Class of Recommendation (COR) and a Level of Evidence (LOE). The 2015 Guidelines Update uses the newest AHA COR and LOE classification system, which contains modifications of the Class III recommendation and introduces LOE B-R (randomized studies) and B-NR (nonrandomized studies) as well as LOE C-LD (based on limited data) and LOE C-EO (consensus of expert opinion). The AHA process for identification and management of potential conflicts of interest was used, and potential conflicts for writing group members are listed at the end of each Part of the 2015 Guidelines Update. For additional information about the systematic review process or management of potential conflicts of interest, see “Part 2: Evidence Evaluation and Management of Conflicts of Interest” in this …

Part 3: Adult Basic and Advanced Life Support: 2020 American Heart Association Guidelines for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care.

Interim Guidance for Emergency Medical Services Management of Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

BackgroundTarget temperature management (TTM) is an effective component of treating out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) after return of spontaneous circulation in conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitation. However, therapeutic hypothermia (32–34 °C TTM) is not recommended based on the results of recent studies. Extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) with veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation is another promising therapy for OHCA, but few studies have examined the effectiveness of ECPR with TTM. Therefore, we hypothesized that ECPR with TTM could have the effectiveness to improve the neurological outcomes for adults following witnessed OHCA, in comparison to ECPR without TTM.MethodsWe performed retrospective subanalyses of the Japanese Association for Acute Medicine OHCA registry. We focused on adults who underwent ECPR for witnessed OHCA. We performed univariate (the Mann–Whitney U test and Fisher’s exact test), multivariable (logistic regression analyses), and propensity score analyses (the inverse probability of the treatment-weighting method) with to compare the neurological outcomes between patients with or without TTM, among all eligible patients, patients with a cardiogenic cause, and patients divided into subgroups according to the interval from collapse to pump start (ICPS) (> 30, > 45, or > 60 min).ResultsWe analyzed data for 977 patients. Among 471 patients treated with TTM, the target temperature was therapeutic hypothermia in 70%, and the median interval from collapse to target temperature was 249 min. Propensity score analysis showed a positive association between TTM and favorable neurological outcomes in all patients (odds ratio 1.546 [95% confidence interval 1.046–2.286], P = 0.029), and in patients with ICPS of > 30 or > 45 min, but not in those with ICPS of > 60 min. The propensity score analysis also showed a positive association between TTM and favorable neurological outcomes in patients with a cardiogenic cause (odds ratio 1.655 [95% confidence interval 1.096–2.500], P = 0.017), including in all ICPS subgroups (> 30, > 45, and > 60 min).ConclusionWithin patients who underwent ECPR following OHCA, ECPR with TTM could show the potential of improvement in the neurological outcomes, compared to ECPR without TTM.

Resuscitation highlights in 2011

BackgroundThe routine application of whole-body CT after extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) has not been extensively investigated. We aimed to evaluate the benefit of CT in this context.MethodsWe retrospectively analyzed all OHCA patients who had received ECPR between January 2006 to May 2019. Electronic records were reviewed to filter out patients who had a whole-body CT as their first clinical evaluation after ECPR. CT findings and major hospital outcomes were evaluated.ResultsFrom January 2006 to May 2019, 700 patients had received ECPR in our institution. We identified 93 OHCA patients who received whole-body CT as the first clinical evaluation after ECPR. 22.6% of those had no acute findings detected on CT requiring immediate treatment. In the remaining 77.4%, CT had findings that might lead to alterations in clinical course. Most important findings were myocardial infarction (57.0%), hypoxic brain injury (29.0%), sternal/rib fractures (16.1%), aortic dissection (7.5%), pulmonary embolism (5.4%), and cardiac tamponade (5.4%). There were no significant differences in ICU/hospitalization days, time on ECMO support, survival and neurological outcomes between those with and without immediate CT. In our OHCA cohort, there were 27 patients with CT evidence of hypoxic brain injury, of whom 22.2% (n = 2) managed to wean from ECMO support, 14.8% (n = 4) survived to discharge, but only 3.7% (n = 1) survived with good neurological outcome. Hypoxic brain injury on CT has a 95% specificity in predicting poor neurological outcome, with a false positive rate of only 3.7%. Logistic regression suggested a potential correlation between CT findings of hypoxic brain injury and poor neurological outcome [Odds ratio (OR) = 12.53 (1.55 to 10.1), p = 0.02)].ConclusionsRoutine whole-body CT after ECPR in OHCA patients appears to have a limited role, as the majority is caused by ACS. However, it may be a useful tool when CPR-related injury or non-ACS causes of OHCA are suspected, as well as in cases where the cause of OHCA is unknown. On the contrary, routine brain CT may be a valuable tool in guiding anticoagulant therapy during ECMO and in aiding outcome prediction.

Background: Cardiac arrest is a leading cause of death worldwide, with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) presenting unique challenges in terms of timely and effective treatment. Conventional Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) remains the standard intervention; however, the emerging use of Extracorporeal Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (ECPR) and its potential for superior hemodynamic support necessitates a comprehensive comparison of these interventions in the context of OHCA to guide resuscitation practices. Aim: This study aims to compare ECPR and conventional CPR in patients experiencing OHCA. Methods: We searched several databases, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) until May 2023. Studies that compared ECPR and conventional CPR in OHCA were included in the analysis. The outcomes assessed included in-hospital mortality following admission, return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), 30-day mortality, and positive neurological recovery at discharge. Data analysis was performed using a random-effects model, with Relative Risk (RR) computed for each outcome. All statistical analyses were performed using R software (version 4.0.3) with metafor and meta packages. Results: We included a total of 5 studies totaling 8,632 patients (4,315 in the ECPR group and 4,317 in the conventional CPR group). The analysis revealed no significant difference between ECPR and conventional CPR in terms of in-hospital mortality (RR 0.95, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 0.88 to 1.03, P=0.19, I2=60%) and ROSC (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.05, P=0.58, I2=0%). However, ECPR was associated with a significant reduction in 30-day mortality (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.91 to 0.95, P<0.01, I2=0%). No significant improvement was found in positive neurological recovery at discharge with ECPR compared to conventional CPR (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.93, P=0.33, I2=16%). Conclusion: This study highlights the potential of ECPR in reducing 30-day mortality compared to conventional CPR in OHCA cases, although its effectiveness in other outcomes, such as in-hospital mortality and neurological recovery, remains inconclusive. Given the observed heterogeneity among the studies, further high-quality studies are needed.

Extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) is a last resort treatment option for refractory cardiac arrest performed in specialized centers. Following consensus recommendations, ECPR is mostly offered to younger patients with witnessed collapse but without return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC). We report findings from a large single-center registry with 252 all-comers who received ECPR from 2011–2019. It took a median of 52 min to establish stable circulation by ECPR. Eighty-five percent of 112 patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) underwent coronary angiography, revealing myocardial infarction (MI) type 1 with atherothrombotic vessel obstruction in 70 patients (63% of all OHCA patients, 74% of OHCA patients undergoing coronary angiography). Sixty-six percent of 140 patients with intra-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA) underwent coronary angiography, which showed MI type 1 in 77 patients (55% of all IHCA patients, 83% of IHCA patients undergoing coronary angiography). These results suggest that MI type 1 is a frequent finding and - most likely - cause of cardiac arrest (CA) in patients without ROSC, especially in OHCA. Hospital survival rates were 30% and 29% in patients with OHCA and IHCA, respectively. According to these findings, rapid coronary angiography may be advisable in patients with OHCA receiving ECPR without obvious non-cardiac cause of arrest, irrespective of electrocardiogram analysis. Almost every third patient treated with ECPR survived to hospital discharge, supporting previous data suggesting that ECPR may be beneficial in CA without ROSC. In conclusion, interventional cardiology is of paramount importance for ECPR programs.