Did lockdown influence bystanders' willingness to perform cardiopulmonary resuscitation? A worldwide registry-based perspective

Standard cardiopulmonary resuscitation versus chest compressions only after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

The 2020 American Heart Association guidelines encourage lay rescuers to provide chest compression-only cardiopulmonary resuscitation to simplify the process and encourage cardiopulmonary resuscitation initiation. However, recent clinical trials had contradictory results about chest compression-only cardiopulmonary resuscitation. This study will aim to compare standard and chest compressions-only cardiopulmonary resuscitation after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This study will retrieve only randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials from the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Web of Science and Embase databases. Data on study design, participant characteristics, intervention details and outcomes will be extracted by a unified standard form. Primary outcomes to be assessed are hospital admission, discharge, and 30-day survival, and return of spontaneous circulation. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework will evaluate the quality of evidence. Cochrane's tool for assessing the risk of bias will evaluate risk deviation. If the I2 statistic is lower than 40%, the fixed-effects model will be used for meta-analysis. Otherwise, the random-effects model will be used. The search will be performed following the publication of this protocol (estimated to occur on 30 December 2024).

DISCUSSION

This study will evaluate the effect of chest compression-only cardiopulmonary resuscitation after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest and provide evidence for cardiopulmonary resuscitation guidelines.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

No patient or public entity will be involved in this study. Therefore, the study does not need to be ethically reviewed. The results of the study will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journal publications and committee conferences.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42021295507.

Treatment of Refractory Cardiac Arrest by Controlled Reperfusion of the Whole Body: A Multicenter, Prospective Observational Study

Background: Survival following cardiac arrest (CA) remains poor after conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CCPR) (6-26%), and the outcomes after extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) are often inconsistent. Poor survival is a consequence of CA, low-flow states during CCPR, multi-organ injury, insufficient monitoring, and delayed treatment of the causative condition. We developed a new strategy to address these issues. Methods: This all-comers, multicenter, prospective observational study (69 patients with in- and out-of-hospital CA (IHCA and OHCA) after prolonged refractory CCPR) focused on extracorporeal cardiopulmonary support, comprehensive monitoring, multi-organ repair, and the potential for out-of-hospital cannulation and treatment. Result: The overall survival rate at hospital discharge was 42.0%, and a favorable neurological outcome (CPC 1+2) at 90 days was achieved for 79.3% of survivors (CPC 1+2 survival 33%). IHCA survival was very favorable (51.7%), as was CPC 1+2 survival at 90 days (41%). Survival of OHCA patients was 35% and CPC 1+2 survival at 90 days was 28%. The subgroup of OHCA patients with pre-hospital cannulation showed a superior survival rate of 57.1%. Conclusions: This new strategy focusing on repairing damage to multiple organs appears to improve outcomes after CA, and these findings should provide a sound basis for further research in this area.

Resuscitation of older adults in Norway; a comparison of survival and outcome after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in healthcare institutions and at home

BACKGROUND

Perceptions about expected outcome after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) influence treatment decisions, and there is a need for updated evidence about outcomes for the elderly.

METHOD

We conducted a cross-sectional study of cases reported to the Norwegian Cardiac Arrest Registry from 2015 through 2021 of patients 60 years and older, suffering cardiac arrest in healthcare institutions or at home. We examined reasons for emergency medical service (EMS) withholding or withdrawing resuscitation. We compared survival and neurological outcome for EMS-treated patients and explored factors associated with survival using multivariate logistic regression.

RESULT

We included 12,191 cases and the EMS started resuscitation in 10,340 (85%). The incidence per capita of OHCA the EMS were alerted to was 267/100,000 in healthcare institutions and 134/100,000 at home. Resuscitation was most frequently withdrawn due to medical history (n = 1251). In healthcare institutions, 72 of 1503 (4.8%) patients survived to 30 days compared to 752 of 8837 (8.5%) at home (P <.001). We found survivors in all age cohorts both in healthcare institutions and at home, and most of the 824 survivors had a good neurological outcome with a Cerebral Performance Category ≤2 (88%).

CONCLUSION

Medical history was the most frequent reason for EMS not to start or continue resuscitation, indicating a need for a discussion about, and documentation of, advance directives in this age group. When EMS attempted resuscitation, most survivors had a good neurological outcome, both in healthcare institutions and at home.