Prehospital Epinephrine Administration Research Articles

Prehospital epinephrine administration for treating anaphylaxis among those with comorbid asthma: A scoping review

BackgroundPrompt and correct use of epinephrine for treating anaphylaxis is considered essential in reducing the risk of fatal outcomes from anaphylaxis. Nevertheless, prehospital use of epinephrine remains low. Although asthma is a common comorbidity in individuals experiencing severe allergic reactions, little attention has been given to whether asthma functions as a predictor of prehospital epinephrine administration. ObjectiveTo perform a scoping review of the extant literature on using epinephrine to manage anaphylaxis in patients with comorbid asthma before presenting to the emergency department. MethodsPer Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Scoping Review guidelines, peer-reviewed articles published in English or French were searched for within the Medline, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and Embase databases between June 11 and June 18, 2021. We excluded studies that did not contain primary data. ResultsThe literature search yielded 1022 articles that were screened at the title and abstract level by 2 independent reviewers. Of these, 90 (8.8%) advanced to full-text review, and ultimately, 8 studies (0.8% of all articles; 8.9% of full-text articles) were included in the analysis. Overall, the association between comorbid asthma and epinephrine use in the prehospital setting for managing anaphylaxis was inconsistently reported in the literature. Three studies reported a positive association, whereas 2 others suggested a link, but their results were no longer significant when controlling for other study variables. Three studies described no significant association. ConclusionAlthough asthma is frequently comorbid in individuals experiencing anaphylaxis, the association between comorbid asthma and prehospital epinephrine treatment rates remains an understudied area of patient care.

Tree nut-induced anaphylaxis in Canadian emergency departments: Rate, clinical characteristics, and management

BackgroundData are sparse regarding tree nut-induced anaphylaxis (TNA). ObjectiveTo characterize rate, clinical characteristics, and management of TNA in children (0-17 years old) across Canada and evaluate factors associated with severe reactions and epinephrine use. MethodsBetween April 2011 and May 2020, data were collected on children presenting to 5 emergency departments in Canada. Multivariate logistic analysis was used to evaluate factors associated with severe reactions (stridor, cyanosis, circulatory collapse, or hypoxia) and epinephrine use. ResultsAmong 3096 cases of anaphylaxis, 540 (17%) were induced by tree nut. The median age was 5.2 (interquartile range, 2.5-9.5) years and 65.4% were of male sex. Among all reactions, 7.0% were severe. The major tree nuts accounting for anaphylaxis were cashew (32.8%), hazelnut (20.0%), and walnut (11.5%). Cashew-induced anaphylaxis was more common in British Columbia (14.0% difference [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.6-27.6]) vs Ontario and Quebec, whereas pistachio-induced anaphylaxis was more common in Ontario and Quebec (6.3% difference [95% CI, 0.5-12.2]). Prehospital and emergency department intramuscular epinephrine administration was documented in only 35.2% and 52.4% of cases, respectively. Severe reactions were more likely among of male sex (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.05 [95% CI, 1.01-1.10]), older children (aOR, 1.00 [95% CI, 1.00-1.01]), and in reactions triggered by macadamia (aOR, 1.27 [95% CI, 1.03-1.57]). ConclusionDifferent TNA patterns in Canada may be because of differences in lifestyle (higher prevalence of Asian ethnicity in British Columbia vs Arabic ethnicity in Ontario and Quebec). Intramuscular epinephrine underutilization urges for epinephrine autoinjector stocking in schools and restaurants, patient education, and consistent policies across Canada.

Effect of Prehospital Epinephrine on Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest Outcomes: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis

PurposeA pilot project using epinephrine at the scene under medical control is currently underway in Korea. This study aimed to determine whether prehospital epinephrine administration is associated with improved survival and neurological outcomes in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) patients who received epinephrine during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) in the emergency department.Materials and MethodsThis retrospective observational study used a nationwide multicenter OHCA registry. Patients were classified into two groups according to whether they received epinephrine at the scene or not. The associations between prehospital epinephrine use and outcomes were assessed using propensity score (PS)-matched analysis. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed using PS matching. The same analysis was repeated for the subgroup of patients with non-shockable rhythm.ResultsPS matching was performed for 1084 patients in each group. Survival to discharge was significantly decreased in the patients who received prehospital epinephrine [odds ratio (OR) 0.415, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.250–0.670, p<0.001]. However, no statistical significance was observed for good neurological outcome (OR 0.548, 95% CI 0.258–1.123, p=0.105). For the patient subgroup with non-shockable rhythm, prehospital epinephrine was also associated with lower survival to discharge (OR 0.514, 95% CI 0.306–0.844, p=0.010), but not with neurological outcome (OR 0.709, 95% CI 0.323–1.529, p=0.382).ConclusionPrehospital epinephrine administration was associated with decreased survival rates in OHCA patients but not statistically associated with neurological outcome in this PS-matched analysis. Further research is required to investigate the reason for the detrimental effect of epinephrine administered at the scene.

Epinephrine administration for adult out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients with refractory shockable rhythm: time-dependent propensity score-sequential matching analysis from a nationwide population-based registry.

Little is known about the effect of prehospital epinephrine administration in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) patients with refractory shockable rhythm, for whom initial defibrillation was unsuccessful. This study using Japanese nationwide population-based registry included all adult OHCA patients aged ≥18 years with refractory shockable rhythm between January 2014 and December 2017. Patients with or without epinephrine during cardiac arrest were sequentially matched using a risk set matching based on the time-dependent propensity scores within the same minute. The primary outcome was 1-month survival. The secondary outcomes included 1-month survival with favourable neurological outcome (cerebral performance category scale: 1 or 2) and prehospital return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC). Of the 499944 patients registered in the database during the study period, 22877 were included. Among them, 8467 (37.0%) received epinephrine. After time-dependent propensity score-sequential matching, 16798 patients were included in the matched cohort. In the matched cohort, positive associations were observed between epinephrine and 1-month survival [epinephrine: 17.3% (1454/8399) vs. no epinephrine: 14.6% (1224/8399); RR 1.22 (95% confidence interval, CI: 1.13-1.32)] and prehospital ROSC [epinephrine: 22.2% (1868/8399) vs. no epinephrine: 10.7% (900/8399); RR 2.07 (95% CI: 1.91-2.25)]. No significant positive association was observed between epinephrine and favourable neurological outcome [epinephrine: 7.8% (654/8399) vs. no epinephrine: 7.1% (611/8399); RR 1.13 (95% CI 0.998-1.27)]. Using the nationwide population-based registry with time-dependent propensity score-sequential matching analysis, prehospital epinephrine administration in adult OHCA patients with refractory shockable rhythm was positively associated with 1-month survival and prehospital ROSC.

Effect of prehospital intraosseous combined with in-hospital intravenous access in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest

Objective: Obtaining vascular access during out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) is challenging. The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of prehospital intraosseous infusion (IO) combined with in-hospital intravenous (IV) (pre-IO + in-IV) access versus the simple IV (pre-IV + in-IV) access in adult OHCA patients who do not achieve prehospital return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC). Methods: This retrospective observational study included adults with OHCA of presumed cardiac etiology between October 1, 2017-October 1, 2020 at an academic emergency department in China. All of the OHCA patients included within the study had Emergency Medical Services cardiopulmonary resuscitation and received prehospital epinephrine administration, but did not achieve prehospital ROSC. The study population were classified as either pre-IO + in-IV or IV (pre-IV + in-IV) based on their epinephrine administration route. The prehospital epinephrine routes were the first and only attempted route. The primary outcome investigated was sustained ROSC following arrival at the emergency department. The secondary outcome considered was the time from dispatch to the first epinephrine dose. Results: Of 193 included adult OHCA subjects who did not have prehospital ROSC, 128 received IV access only. The 65 pre-IO + in-IV-treated patients received epinephrine faster compared to IV-treated patients in terms of the median time from dispatch to the first injection of epinephrine (14.5 vs. 16.0 min, P = 0.001). In the pre-IO + in-IV group, 34 of 65 patients (52.3%) achieved sustained ROSC compared with 65 of 128 (50.8%) patients in the IV group (χ2 = 0.031, P = 0.841). There was no significant difference in sustained ROSC (adjusted OR1.049, 95% CI: 0.425-2.591, P = 0.918) between the two groups. Conclusion: A similar sustained ROSC rate was achieved for both the pre-IO + in-IV access group and the simple IV access group. Our results suggested that an IV route should be established quickly for prehospital IO-treated OHCA patients who do not achieve prehospital ROSC.

Outcomes and Factors Associated With Prehospital Treatment of Pediatric Anaphylaxis.

Anaphylaxis is a potentially life-threatening reaction requiring prompt treatment with intramuscular epinephrine (EPI). We sought to describe presenting features of pediatric anaphylaxis and compare patient characteristics and outcomes of children treated with prehospital EPI with those untreated. We abstracted data from emergency department (ED) records for children meeting the National Institute of Allergy & Infectious Disease criteria for anaphylaxis (2015-2017) in one tertiary care children's hospital. We analyzed associations between patient characteristics and outcomes and receipt of prehospital EPI using descriptive statistics and multivariate logistic regression. Of 414 children presenting with anaphylaxis, 39.4% received IM EPI and 62.1% received antihistamines before hospital arrival. Children with Medicaid received pre-emergency department EPI less frequently than did children with private insurance (24.5% vs 43.8%, P = 0.001). Factors positively associated with prehospital EPI administration were history of food allergy (odds ratio [OR], 4.4 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 2.4-8.2]) or arrival by emergency medical services (OR, 8.0 [95% CI, 4.2-15.0]). Medicaid insurance was associated with decreased odds of prehospital EPI (OR, 0.33 [95% CI, 0.16-0.66]) and prehospital H1-antihistamine use (OR, 0.30 [95% CI, 0.17-0.56]). Prehospital EPI treatment was also associated with decreased rates of observation (37% vs 63%), inpatient admission (38% vs 62%), and intensive care unit admission (20% vs 80%) compared with no pretreatment (P = 0.03). Prehospital treatment with EPI remains low, and barriers to optimal treatment are more pronounced in children with public insurance. Prehospital treatment with EPI was associated with decreased morbidity including hospitalization and intensive care unit admission.

Pre-Hospital Administration of Epinephrine in Pediatric Patients With Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest

BackgroundThere is little evidence about pre-hospital advanced life support including epinephrine administration for pediatric out-of-hospital cardiac arrests (OHCAs). ObjectivesThis study aimed to assess the effect of pre-hospital epinephrine administration by emergency-medical-service (EMS) personnel for pediatric OHCA. MethodsThis nationwide population-based observational study in Japan enrolled pediatric patients age 8 to 17 years with OHCA between January 2007 and December 2016. Patients were sequentially matched with or without epinephrine during cardiac arrest using a risk-set matching based on time-dependent propensity score (probability of receiving epinephrine) calculated at each minute after initiation of cardiopulmonary resuscitation by EMS personnel. The primary endpoint was 1-month survival. Secondary endpoints were 1-month survival with favorable neurological outcome, defined as the cerebral performance category scale of 1 or 2, and pre-hospital return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC). ResultsDuring the study period, a total of 1,214,658 OHCA patients were registered, and 3,961 pediatric OHCAs were eligible for analyses. Of these, 306 (7.7%) patients received epinephrine and 3,655 (92.3%) did not receive epinephrine. After time-dependent propensity score-sequential matching, 608 patients were included in the matched cohort. In the matched cohort, there were no significant differences between the epinephrine and no epinephrine groups in 1-month survival (epinephrine: 10.2% [31 of 304] vs. no epinephrine: 7.9% [24 of 304]; risk ratio [RR]: 1.13 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.67 to 1.93]) and favorable neurological outcome (epinephrine: 3.6% [11 of 304] vs. no epinephrine: 2.6% [8 of 304]; RR: 1.56 [95% CI: 0.61 to 3.96]), whereas the epinephrine group had a higher likelihood of achieving pre-hospital ROSC (epinephrine: 11.2% [34 of 304] vs. no epinephrine: 3.3% [10 of 304]; RR: 3.17 [95% CI: 1.54 to 6.54]). ConclusionsIn this study, pre-hospital epinephrine administration was associated with ROSC, whereas there were no significant differences in 1-month survival and favorable neurological outcome between those with and without epinephrine.

P1703Impact of prehospital epinephrine administration and quality of cardiopulmonary resuscitation on neurologically intact survival in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients with non-shockable rhythm

Abstract Background The effects of prehospital epinephrine administration in combination with the quality of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) on neurological outcomes in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) patients with non-shockable rhythm remains unclear. Purpose This study aimed to elucidate the effects of prehospital epinephrine administration in combination with the quality of CPR on neurologically intact survival in OHCA patients with non-shockable rhythm. Methods We analysed 118,732 adult OHCA patients with non-shockable rhythm from the All-Japan OHCA registry between 2011 and 2016 (29,989 emergency medical service [EMS]-witnessed arrests with EMS-initiated CPR [high-quality CPR] and 88,743 bystander-witnessed arrests with bystander-initiated CPR continued by EMS providers [low-quality CPR]). Patients who achieved prehospital return of spontaneous circulation without prehospital epinephrine administration were excluded. The primary outcome measure was 1-month neurologically intact survival (cerebral performance category 1 or 2; CPC 1–2). Time from collapse to prehospital epinephrine administration for patients with prehospital epinephrine administration, or to hospital arrival for patients without prehospital epinephrine administration was calculated and adjusted collectively in multivariate logistic regression analysis for 1-month CPC 1–2. Results Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that the time from collapse to prehospital epinephrine administration or to hospital arrival was negatively associated with 1-month CPC 1–2 (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 0.95 per 1-minute increment, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.94–0.96). Compared with bystander-witnessed arrests without prehospital epinephrine administration, EMS-witnessed arrests with or without prehospital epinephrine administration were significantly associated with increased chances of 1-month CPC 1–2 (adjusted OR 2.04, 95% CI 1.50–2.75 and adjusted OR 1.97, 95% CI 1.57–2.48, respectively). Prehospital epinephrine administration was significantly associated with an increased chance of 1-month CPC 1–2 among bystander-witnessed arrests (adjusted OR 1.57, 95% CI 1.24–1.98), but not among EMS-witnessed arrests. EMS-witnessed arrests without prehospital epinephrine administration were significantly associated with an increased chance of 1-month CPC 1–2 compared with bystander-witnessed arrests with prehospital epinephrine administration (adjusted OR 1.26, 95% CI 1.01–1.56). Conclusions High-quality CPR is crucial for increasing neurologically intact survival in OHCA patients with non-shockable rhythm. The additional beneficial effects of prehospital epinephrine administration were observed only among OHCA patients with low-quality CPR.

Association of Prehospital Epinephrine Administration With Survival Among Patients With Traumatic Cardiac Arrest Caused By Traffic Collisions

For traumatic cardiac arrest (TCA), the effect of prehospital epinephrine administration was unclear. The aim of this study was to evaluate the relationship between prehospital epinephrine administration and survival in patients with TCA caused by traffic collisions. We conducted a nationwide, prospective, population-based observational study involving patients who experienced out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) by using the All-Japan Utstein Registry. Blunt trauma patients with TCA who received prehospital epinephrine were compared with those who did not receive prehospital epinephrine. The primary outcome was 1-month survival of patients. The secondary outcome was prehospital return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC). A total of 5,204 patients with TCA were analyzed. Of those, 758 patients (14.6%) received prehospital epinephrine (Epinephrine group), whereas the remaining 4,446 patients (85.4%) did not receive prehospital epinephrine (No epinephrine group). Eleven (1.5%) and 41 (0.9%) patients in the Epinephrine and No epinephrine groups, respectively, survived for 1 month. In addition, 74 (9.8%) and 40 (0.9%) patients achieved prehospital ROSC in the Epinephrine and No epinephrine groups, respectively. In multivariable logistic regression models, prehospital epinephrine administration was not associated with 1-month survival (odds ratio [OR] 1.495, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.758 to 2.946) and was associated with prehospital ROSC (OR 3.784, 95% CI 2.102 to 6.812). A propensity score-matched analysis showed similar results for 1-month survival (OR 2.363, 95% CI 0.606 to 9,223) and prehospital ROSC (OR 6.870, 95% CI 3.326 to 14.192). Prehospital epinephrine administration in patients with TCA was not associated with 1-month survival, but was beneficial in regard to prehospital ROSC.

A factor improving the effect of pre-hospital epinephrine administration

Background: The epinephrine administration in the pre-hospital setting has been evaluated for its time relationship and the frequency. However, the relationship between the effect of bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (BCPR) and epinephrine administration time is not discussed.

Effects of prehospital epinephrine administration on neurologically intact survival in bystander-witnessed out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients with non-shockable rhythm depend on prehospital cardiopulmonary resuscitation duration required to hospital arrival.

The effects of prehospital epinephrine administration on post-arrest neurological outcome in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) patients with non-shockable rhythm remain unclear. To examine the time-dependent effectiveness of prehospital epinephrine administration, we analyzed 118,396 bystander-witnessed OHCA patients with non-shockable rhythm from the prospectively recorded all-Japan OHCA registry between 2011 and 2014. Patients who achieved prehospital return of spontaneous circulation without prehospital epinephrine administration were excluded. Patients with prehospital epinephrine administration were stratified according to the time from the initiation of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) by emergency medical service (EMS) providers to the first epinephrine administration (≤ 10, 11-19, and ≥ 20min). Patients without prehospital epinephrine administration were stratified according to the time from CPR initiation by EMS providers to hospital arrival (≤ 10, 11-19, and ≥ 20min). The primary outcome was 1-month neurologically intact survival (cerebral performance category 1 or 2; CPC 1-2). Multivariate logistic regression analysis demonstrated that there was no significant difference in the chance of 1-month CPC 1-2 between patients who arrived at hospital in ≤ 10min without prehospital epinephrine administration and patients with time to epinephrine administration ≤ 19min. However, compared to patients who arrived at hospital in ≤ 10min without prehospital epinephrine administration, patients with time to epinephrine administration ≥ 20min and patients who arrived at hospital in 11-19, and ≥ 20min without prehospital epinephrine administration were significantly associated with decreased chance of 1-month CPC 1-2 (p < 0.05, < 0.05, and < 0.001, respectively). In conclusion, when prehospital CPR duration from CPR initiation by EMS providers to hospital arrival estimated to be ≥ 11min, prehospital epinephrine administered ≤ 19min from CPR initiation by EMS providers could improve neurologically intact survival in bystander-witnessed OHCA patients with non-shockable rhythm.

Prehospital Administration of Epinephrine in Pediatric Anaphylaxis – A Statewide Perspective

Objective: Timely administration of epinephrine is critical in the treatment of anaphylaxis. This study sought to determine the frequency of administration of epinephrine by EMS providers caring for pediatric patients in the prehospital setting. Methods: We examined data from the NC EMS database (PreMIS) from 2010–3 to determine frequency of epinephrine administration in pediatric patients with anaphylaxis. We studied patients <18 years of age with an EMS provider impression of “allergic reaction.” Anaphylaxis was present if there was hypotension (defined as SBP < 90 or DBP < 45 for patients age 11 and older, and SBP < 70 + (2 × age) for patients ages 0–10), or impaired respirations (defined as description of labored or absent respirations, or RR < 12 or > 30). We determined the overall frequency of epinephrine administration. A multivariate logistic regression was then constructed to examine the impact of the following variables on appropriate epinephrine administration: age < 10, non-white race, rural county of case origin, duration of transportation from scene, and presence of a paramedic. Results: A total of 504 patients met inclusion criteria, of which 471 demonstrated anaphylaxis as previously defined. A total of 153 patients with anaphylaxis received epinephrine (32.4%, 95% CI 28.3–36.9%). Age < 10 was associated with increased odds of not receiving epinephrine appropriately (OR 2.90, 95% CI 1.85–4.54, p < 0.001). Other variables did not havestatistically significant impact on epinephrine administration. Conclusion: There are missed opportunities for prehospital administration of epinephrine in pediatric patients with anaphylaxis. Very young children (age < 10) had increased odds for not receiving epinephrine.

Effectiveness of Prehospital Epinephrine Administration in Improving Long-term Outcomes of Witnessed Out-of-hospital Cardiac Arrest Patients with Initial Non-shockable Rhythms

Objective: We evaluated the association between prehospital epinephrine administration by emergency medical services (EMS) and the long-term outcomes of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) with initial pulseless electrical activity (PEA) or asystole. Methods: We conducted a controlled, propensity-matched, retrospective cohort study by using Japan's nationwide OHCA registry database. We studied 110,239 bystander-witnessed OHCA patients aged 15–94 years with initial non-shockable rhythms registered between January 2008 and December 2012. We created 1–1 matched pairs of patients with or without epinephrine by using sequential risk set matching based on time-dependent propensity scores to balance the patients' severity and characteristics. We compared overall and neurologically intact survival 1 month after OHCA between cases and controls using conditional logistic regression models by category of the initial rhythm. Results: Propensity matching created 7,431 pairs in patients with PEA and 8,906 pairs in those with asystole. Epinephrine administration was associated with higher overall survival (4.49% vs. 2.96%; odds ratio [OR], 1.55; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.30–1.85) but not with neurologically intact survival (0.98% vs. 0.78%; OR, 1.26; 95% CI, 0.89–1.78) in patients with PEA, and with higher overall survival (2.38% vs. 1.04%; OR, 2.34; 95% CI, 1.82–3.00) and neurologically intact survival (0.48% vs. 0.22%; OR, 2.28; 95% CI, 1.31–3.96) in those with asystole. Conclusions: Prehospital epinephrine administration by EMS is favorably associated with long-term neurological outcomes in patients with initial asystole and with long-term survival outcomes in those with PEA.

Anaphylaxis across two Canadian pediatric centers: evaluating management disparities.

BackgroundThere are no data on the percentage of visits due to anaphylaxis in the emergency department (ED), triggers, and management of anaphylaxis across different provinces in Canada.ObjectiveTo compare the percentage of anaphylaxis cases among all ED visits, as well as the triggers and management of anaphylaxis between two Canadian pediatric EDs (PEDs).MethodsAs part of the Cross-Canada Anaphylaxis Registry (C-CARE), children presenting to the British Columbia Children’s Hospital (BCCH) and Montreal Children’s Hospital (MCH) EDs with anaphylaxis were recruited. Characteristics, triggers, and management of anaphylaxis were documented using a standardized data entry form. Differences in demographics, triggers, and management were determined by comparing the difference of proportions and 95% confidence interval.ResultsBetween June 2014 and June 2016, there were 346 visits due to anaphylaxis among 93,730 PED visits at the BCCH ED and 631 anaphylaxis visits among 164,669 pediatric visits at the MCH ED. In both centers, the majority of cases were triggered by food (BCCH 91.3% [88.7, 94.0], MCH 82.4% [79.7, 85.3]), of which peanuts were the most common culprit (24.7% [20.9, 29.9] and 19.0% [15.8, 22.7], respectively). Pre-hospital administration of epinephrine (BCCH 27.7% [23.2, 32.8], MCH 33.1% [29.5, 37.0]) and antihistamines (BCCH 50.6% [45.2, 56.0], MCH 47.1% [43.1, 51.0]) was similar. In-hospital management differed in terms of increased epinephrine, antihistamine, and steroid use at the BCCH (59.2% [53.9, 64.4], 59.8% [54.4, 65.0], and 60.1% [54.7, 65.3], respectively) compared to the MCH (42.2% [38.3, 46.2], 36.2% [32.5, 40.1], and 11.9% [9.5, 14.8], respectively). Despite differences in management, percentage of cases admitted to the intensive care unit was similar between the two centers.ConclusionCompared to previous European and North American reports, there is a high percentage of anaphylaxis cases in two PEDs across Canada with substantial differences in hospital management practices. It is crucial to develop training programs that aim to increase epinephrine use in anaphylaxis.

Effect of prehospital epinephrine on out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: a report from the national out-of-hospital cardiac arrest data registry in Japan, 2011-2012.

The effect of prehospital epinephrine on neurological outcome in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) is still controversial. We sought to determine whether prehospital epinephrine administration was associated with improved outcomes in adult OHCA. A nationwide, population-based, propensity score-matched study of OHCA patients from January 1, 2011, to December 31, 2012, in Japan was conducted. We included adult OHCA patients treated by emergency medical service personnel without an excessive delay. The primary outcome was neurologically favorable survival 1month after OHCA. A total of 237,068 patients (16,616 with a shockable rhythm and 220,452 with a non-shockable rhythm) were included in the final cohort. A total of 4024 out of the 16,616 shockable OHCAs and 29,393 out of the 220,452 non-shockable OHCAs received prehospital epinephrine. In the propensity score-matched cohort, prehospital epinephrine was associated with a decreased chance of neurologically favorable survival (shockable OHCA 7.6 vs. 17.9%, OR 0.38 [95%CI 0.33-0.43]; non-shockable OHCA 0.6 vs. 1.2%, OR 0.47 [95%CI 0.39-0.56]). In the subgroup analyses, prehospital epinephrine was significantly associated with poor neurological outcome in all subgroups. In the ancillary analyses, although the neurological outcome was worse as the number of epinephrine doses increased or the time to epinephrine increased, patients had a greater chance of a favorable neurological outcome only when a single dose of epinephrine was administered within 15min of the emergency call in shockable OHCA. Among adult OHCA patients, prehospital epinephrine was associated with a decreased chance of neurologically favorable survival. Situations in which prehospital epinephrine is effective may be extremely limited.

Prehospital Administration of Epinephrine in Pediatric Anaphylaxis – a Statewide Perspective

Prehospital Administration of Epinephrine in Pediatric Anaphylaxis – a Statewide Perspective

Prehospital Administration of Epinephrine in Pediatric Anaphylaxis

Anaphylaxis in the pediatric population is both serious and potentially lethal. The incidence of allergic and anaphylactic reactions has been increasing and the need for life saving intervention with epinephrine must remain an important part of Emergency Medical Services (EMS) provider training. Our aim was to characterize dosing and timing of epinephrine, diphenhydramine, and albuterol in the pediatric patient with anaphylaxis. In this retrospective chart review, we studied prehospital medication administration in pediatric patients ages 1 month up to 14 years old classified as having a severe allergic reaction or anaphylaxis. We compared rates of epinephrine, diphenhydramine, and albuterol given to patients with allergic conditions including anaphylaxis. In addition, we calculated the rate of epinephrine administration in cases of anaphylaxis and determined what percentage of time the epinephrine was given by EMS or prior to their arrival. Of the pediatric patient contacts, 205 were treated for allergic complaints. Of those with allergic complaints, 98 of 205 (48%; 95% CI 41%, 55%) had symptoms consistent with anaphylaxis and indications for epinephrine. Of these 98, 53 (54%, 95% CI 44%, 64%) were given epinephrine by EMS or prior to EMS arrival. Among the patients in anaphylaxis not given epinephrine prior to EMS arrival, 6 (12%; 95% CI 3%, 21%) received epinephrine from EMS, 10 (20%; 95% CI 9%, 30%) received diphenhydramine only, 9 (18%, 95% CI 7%–28%) received only albuterol and 17 (33%, 95% CI 20%–46%) received both albuterol and diphenhydramine. 9 patients in anaphylaxis received no treatment prior to arriving to the emergency department (18%, 95% CI 7%–28%). In pediatric patients who met criteria for anaphylaxis and the use of epinephrine, only 54% received epinephrine and the overwhelming majority received it prior to EMS arrival. EMS personnel may not be treating anaphylaxis appropriately with epinephrine.

Appropriateness of epinephrine use in ED patients with anaphylaxis

BackgroundStudies have demonstrated low rates of emergency department (ED) epinephrine administration for anaphylaxis patients, suggestive of ED undertreatment of anaphylaxis. Our study assessed the appropriateness of ED epinephrine administration in anaphylaxis management. MethodsA prospective observational study was conducted involving ED patients presenting with possible allergic reactions. Patients and ED providers completed questionnaires regarding the suspected trigger, signs and symptoms, and prehospital treatment. Two board-certified allergists-immunologists independently reviewed the questionnaires, as well as electronic health records, to determine whether the cases represented anaphylaxis and whether ED epinephrine administration was appropriate. ResultsAmong 174 patients enrolled in the study, 61 (35%) were confirmed to have anaphylaxis. Overall, 47 anaphylaxis patients (77%) received epinephrine either before ED arrival or in the ED. In the latter situation, 24 anaphylaxis patients (39%) received epinephrine and 37 (61%) did not. Of the patients who received ED epinephrine, the allergists-immunologists determined that its administration was appropriate in all cases (95% confidence interval [CI], 83%-100%). Among the 37 patients who did not receive ED epinephrine, the allergists-immunologists determined that nonadministration of epinephrine was appropriate in 36 patients (97%; 95% CI, 84%-100%). The allergists-immunologists determined that overall, ED management was appropriate for 60 (98%) of 61 patients with anaphylaxis (95% CI, 90%-100%). ConclusionsAlthough more than 60% of anaphylaxis patients did not receive epinephrine in the ED, the allergists-immunologists deemed ED management appropriate in 98% of total cases. Previous retrospective studies may underestimate the appropriateness of ED anaphylaxis management, particularly when prehospital epinephrine administration is not reported.

Effects of prehospital epinephrine administration on neurological outcomes in patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.

BackgroundTo determine if the effects of epinephrine administration on the outcome of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA), patients are associated with the duration of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) performed by Emergency Medical Service (EMS) personnel.MethodsThis retrospective, nonrandomized, observational analysis used the All-Japan Utstein Registry, a prospective, nationwide population-based registry of all OHCA patients transported to the hospital by EMS staff as the data source. We stratified all OHCA patients for quartile of EMSs’ CPR duration. Group 1 consisted of patients who fell under the 25th percentile of EMSs’ CPR duration (under 15 min); group 2, patients who fell into the 25th to 50th percentile (between 15 and 19 min); group 3, patients who fell into the 50th to 75th percentile (between 20 and 26 min); and group 4, patients who fell at or above the 75th percentile (over 26 min). The primary endpoint was a favorable neurological outcome 1 month after cardiac arrest. The secondary endpoints were ROSC before arrival at the hospital and 1-month survival.ResultsA total of 383,811 patients aged over 18 years who had experienced OHCA between 2006 and 2010 in Japan, when stratified for quartile of EMSs’ CPR duration, the epinephrine administration increased the rate of return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) approximately tenfold in all groups. However, the beneficial effects of epinephrine administration on 1-month survival disappeared in patients on whom EMSs’ CPR had been performed for more than 26 min, and the beneficial effects of epinephrine administration on neurological outcomes were observed only in patients on whom EMSs’ CPR had been performed between 15 and 19 min (odds ratio, 1.327, 95 % confidence intervals, 1.017–1.733 P = 0.037).ConclusionsEpinephrine administration is associated with an increase of ROSC and with improvement in the neurological outcome on which EMSs’ CPR duration is performed between 15 and 19 min.

Effective Pre-hospital Care for Out-of-hospital Cardiac Arrest Caused by Respiratory Disease

The relationship between pre-hospital care and the prognosis of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) caused by respiratory disease is unclear. This study aimed to assess the impact of pre-hospital care on the prognosis of OHCA caused by respiratory disease. In a nationwide, population-based, observational study, we enrolled 121,081 adults aged ≥18 years who experienced OHCA from January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2010. The primary endpoint was favourable neurological outcomes. Of the 120,256 eligible adult OHCA patients, 7,071 (5.9%) experienced OHCA caused by respiratory disease. Of these 7,071 patients, 3,911 (55.3%) received no cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), 2,403 (34.0%) received chest-compression-only CPR, and 757 (10.7%) received conventional CPR by a bystander. There was no significant difference between the three types of bystander CPR with regard to the neurological outcome (no CPR: OR 0.68, 95%CI 0.39-1.24, p=0.1951; chest-compression-only CPR: OR 0.68, 95%CI 0.37-1.29, p=0.2295; and conventional CPR: as a reference). Pre-hospital administration of epinephrine (OR 0.37, 95%CI 0.13-0.85, p=0.0170) and the implementation of advanced airway management (OR 0.32, 95%CI 0.19-0.52, p<0.0001) were associated with poor neurological outcomes. Even in OHCA caused by respiratory disease, not only pre-hospital epinephrine administration but also pre-hospital advanced airway management and rescue breathing in bystander CPR may not be critical.