Dataset Information

External validation of multimodal termination of resuscitation rules for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients in the COVID-19 era.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Futile resuscitation for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) patients in the coronavirus disease (COVID)-19 era can lead to risk of disease transmission and unnecessary transport. Various existing basic or advanced life support (BLS or ALS, respectively) rules for the termination of resuscitation (TOR) have been derived and validated in North America and Asian countries. This study aimed to evaluate the external validation of these rules in predicting the survival outcomes of OHCA patients in the COVID-19 era.

Methods

This was a multicenter observational study using the WinCOVID-19 Daegu registry data collected during February 18-March 31, 2020. The subjects were patients who showed cardiac arrest of presumed cardiac etiology. The outcomes of each rule were compared to the actual patient survival outcomes. The sensitivity, specificity, false positive value (FPV), and positive predictive value (PPV) of each TOR rule were evaluated.

Results

In total, 170 of the 184 OHCA patients were eligible and evaluated. TOR was recommended for 122 patients based on the international basic life support termination of resuscitation (BLS-TOR) rule, which showed 85% specificity, 74% sensitivity, 0.8% FPV, and 99% PPV for predicting unfavorable survival outcomes. When the traditional BLS-TOR rules and KoCARC TOR rule II were applied to our registry, one patient met the TOR criteria but survived at hospital discharge. With regard to the FPV (upper limit of 95% confidence interval < 5%), specificity (100%), and PPV (> 99%) criteria, only the KoCARC TOR rule I, which included a combination of three factors including not being witnessed by emergency medical technicians, presenting with an asystole at the scene, and not experiencing prehospital shock delivery or return of spontaneous circulation, was found to be superior to all other TOR rules.

Conclusion

Among the previous nine BLS and ALS TOR rules, KoCARC TOR rule I was most suitable for predicting poor survival outcomes and showed improved diagnostic performance. Further research on variations in resources and treatment protocols among facilities, regions, and cultures will be useful in determining the feasibility of TOR rules for COVID-19 patients worldwide.

SUBMITTER: Jung H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7838848 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundIn Japan, emergency medical service (EMS) providers are prohibited from field termination-of-resuscitation (TOR) in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) patients. In 2013, we developed a TOR rule for emergency department physicians (Goto's TOR rule) immediately after hospital arrival. However, this rule is subject to flaws, and there is a need for revision owing to its relatively low specificity for predicting mortality compared with other TOR rules in the emergency department. Therefore, this study aimed to develop and validate a modified Goto's TOR rule by considering prehospital EMS cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) duration.MethodsWe analysed the records of 465,657 adult patients with OHCA from the All-Japan Utstein registry from 2016 to 2019 and divided them into two groups: development (n = 231,363) and validation (n = 234,294). The primary outcome measures were specificity, false-positive rate (FPR), and positive predictive value (PPV) of the revised TOR rule in the emergency department for predicting 1-month mortality.ResultsRecursive partitioning analysis for the development group in predicting 1-month mortality revealed that a modified Goto's TOR rule could be defined if patients with OHCA met the following four criteria: (1) initial asystole, (2) unwitnessed arrest by any laypersons, (3) EMS-CPR duration > 20 min, and (4) no prehospital return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC). The specificity, FPR, and PPV of the rule for predicting 1-month mortality were 99.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 99.0-99.4%), 0.8% (0.6-1.0%), and 99.8% (99.8-99.9%), respectively. The proportion of patients who fulfilled the rule and the area under the receiver operating curve (AUC) was 27.5% (95% CI 27.3-27.7%) and 0.904 (0.902-0.905), respectively. In the validation group, the specificity, FPR, PPV, proportion of patients who met the rule, and AUC were 99.1% (95% CI 98.9-99.2%), 0.9% (0.8-1.1%), 99.8% (99.8-99.8%), 27.8% (27.6-28.0%), and 0.889 (0.887-0.891), respectively.ConclusionThe modified Goto's TOR rule (which includes the following four criteria: initial asystole, unwitnessed arrest, EMS-CPR duration > 20 min, and no prehospital ROSC) with a > 99% predictor of 1-month mortality is a reliable tool for physicians treating refractory OHCAs immediately after hospital arrival.

Project description:BackgroundElectrocardiogram (ECG) rhythms, particularly shockable rhythms, are crucial for planning cardiac arrest treatment. There are varying opinions regarding treatment guidelines depending on ECG rhythm types and documentation times within pre-hospital settings or after hospital arrivals. We aimed to determine survival and neurologic outcomes based on ECG rhythm types and documentation times.MethodsThis prospective observational study of 64 emergency medical centers was performed using non-traumatic out-of-hospital cardiac arrest registry data between October 2015 and June 2017. From among 4,608 adult participants, 4,219 patients with pre-hospital and hospital ECG rhythm data were enrolled. Patients were divided into 3 groups: those with initial-shockable, converted-shockable, and never-shockable rhythms. Patient characteristics and survival outcomes were compared between groups. Further, termination of resuscitation (TOR) validation was performed for 6 combinations of TOR criteria confirmed in previous studies, including 2 rules developed in the present study.ResultsTotal survival to discharge after cardiac arrest was 11.7%, and discharge with good neurologic outcomes was 7.9%. Survival to discharge rates and favorable neurologic outcome rates for the initial-shockable group were the highest at 35.3% and 30.2%, respectively. There were no differences in survival to discharge rates and favorable neurologic outcome rates between the converted-shockable (4.2% and 2.0%, respectively) and never-shockable groups (5.7% and 1.9%, respectively). Irrespective of rhythm changes before and after hospital arrival, TOR criteria inclusive of unwitnessed events, no pre-hospital return of spontaneous circulation, and asystole in the emergency department best predicted poor neurologic outcomes (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.911) with no patients classified as Cerebral Performance Category 1 or 2 (specificity = 1.000).ConclusionSurvival outcomes and TOR predictions varied depending on ECG rhythm types and documentation times within pre-hospital filed or emergency department and should, in the future, be considered in treatment algorithms and prognostications of patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03222999.

Project description:BACKGROUND:The prognosis in refractory out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) with ongoing cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) at hospital arrival is often considered dismal. The use of extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (eCPR) for perfusion enhancement during resuscitation has shown variable results. We aimed to investigate outcome in refractory OHCA patients managed conservatively without use of eCPR. METHODS:We included consecutive OHCA patients with refractory arrest or prehospital return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) in the Copenhagen area in 2002-2011. RESULTS:A total of 3992 OHCA patients with resuscitation attempts were included; in 2599, treatment was terminated prehospital, and 1393 (35%) were brought to the hospital either with ROSC (n?=?1285, 92%) or with refractory OHCA (n?=?108, 8%). Of patients brought in with refractory OHCA, 56 (52%) achieved ROSC in the emergency department. There were no differences between patients with refractory OHCA or prehospital ROSC with regard to age, sex, comorbidities, or etiology of OHCA. Time to emergency medical services (EMS) arrival was similar, whereas time to ROSC (when ROSC was achieved) was longer in refractory OHCA patients (EMS, 6 (5-9] vs. 7 [5-10] min, p?=?0.8; ROSC, 15 [9-22] vs. 27 [20-41] min, p?<?0.001). Independent factors associated with transport with refractory OHCA instead of prehospital termination of therapy were OHCA in public (OR, 3.6 [95% CI, 2.2-5.8]; p?<?0.001), witnessed OHCA (OR, 3.7 [2.0-7.1]; p?<?0.001), shockable rhythm (OR, 3.0 [1.9-4.7]; p?<?0.001), younger age (OR, 1.2 [1.1-1.2]; p?<?0.001), and later calendar year (OR, 1.4 [1.2-1.6]; p?<?0.001). Thirty-day survival was 20% in patients with refractory OHCA compared with 42% in patients with prehospital ROSC (p?<?0.001). Four of 28 refractory OHCA patients with duration of resuscitation >?60 min achieved ROSC. No difference in favorable neurological outcome in patients surviving to discharge was found (prehospital ROSC 84% vs. refractory OHCA 86%; p?=?0.7). CONCLUSIONS:Survival after refractory OHCA with ongoing CPR at hospital arrival was significantly lower than among patients with prehospital ROSC. Despite a lower survival, the majority of survivors with both refractory OHCA and prehospital ROSC were discharged with a similar degree of favorable neurological outcome, indicating that continued efforts in spite of refractory OHCA are not in vain and may still lead to favorable outcome even without eCPR.