Dataset Information

Clinical outcomes and safety of passive leg raising in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: a randomized controlled trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background

There are data suggesting that passive leg raising (PLR) improves hemodynamics during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). This trial aimed to determine the effectiveness and safety of PLR during CPR in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA).

Methods

We conducted a randomized controlled trial with blinded assessment of the outcomes that assigned adults OHCA to be treated with PLR or in the flat position. The trial was conducted in the Camp de Tarragona region. The main end point was survival to hospital discharge with good neurological outcome defined as cerebral performance category (CPC 1-2). To study possible adverse effects, we assessed the presence of pulmonary complications on the first chest X-rays, brain edema on the computerized tomography (CT) in survivors and brain and lungs weights from autopsies in non-survivors.

Results

In total, 588 randomized cases were included, 301 were treated with PLR and 287 were controls. Overall, 67.8% were men and the median age was 72 (IQR 60-82) years. At hospital discharge, 3.3% in the PLR group and 3.5% in the control group were alive with CPC 1-2 (OR 0.9; 95% CI 0.4-2.3, p = 0.91). No significant differences in survival at hospital admission were found in all patients (OR 1.0; 95% CI 0.7-1.6, p = 0.95) and among patients with an initial shockable rhythm (OR 1.7; 95% CI 0.8-3.4, p = 0.15). There were no differences in pulmonary complication rates in chest X-rays [7 (25.9%) vs 5 (17.9%), p = 0.47] and brain edema on CT [5 (29.4%) vs 10 (32.6%), p = 0.84]. There were no differences in lung weight [1223 mg (IQR 909-1500) vs 1239 mg (IQR 900-1507), p = 0.82] or brain weight [1352 mg (IQR 1227-1457) vs 1380 mg (IQR 1255-1470), p = 0.43] among the 106 autopsies performed.

Conclusion

In this trial, PLR during CPR did not improve survival to hospital discharge with CPC 1-2. No evidence of adverse effects has been found. Clinical trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01952197, registration date: September 27, 2013, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01952197 .

SUBMITTER: Azeli Y

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8152146 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background. Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) remains a challenge for emergency physicians, given the poor prognosis. In 2020, MIRACLE2, a new and easier to apply score, was established to predict the neurological outcome of OHCA. Objective. The aim of this study is to compare the discrimination of MIRACLE2 score with cardiac arrest hospital prognosis (CAHP) score for OHCA neurologic outcomes. Methods. This retrospective cohort study was conducted between January 2015 and December 2019. Adult patients (>17 years) with cardiac arrest who were brought to the hospital by an emergency medical service crew were included. Deaths due to trauma, burn, drowning, resuscitation not initiated due to pre-ordered “do not resuscitate” orders, and patients who did not achieve return of spontaneous circulation were excluded. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis with Youden Index was performed to calculate optimal cut-off values for both scores. Results. Overall, 200 adult OHCA cases were analyzed. The threshold of the MIRACLE2 score for favorable neurologic outcomes was 5.5, with an area under the curve (AUC) value of 0.70 (0.61−0.80, p < 0.001); the threshold of the CAHP score was 223.4, with an AUC of 0.77 (0.68−0.86, p < 0.001). On setting the MIRACLE2 score cut-off value, we documented 64.7% sensitivity (95% confidence interval [CI], 56.9−71.9%), 66.7.0% specificity (95% CI, 48.2−82.0%), 90.8% positive predictive value (PPV; 95% CI, 85.6−94.2%), and 27.2% negative predictive value (NPV; 95% CI, 21.4−33.9%). On establishing a CAHP cut-off value, we observed 68.2% sensitivity (95% CI, 60.2−75.5%), 80.6% specificity (95% CI, 62.5−92.6%), 94.6% PPV (95% CI, 88.6%−98.0%), and 33.8% NPV (95% CI, 23.2−45.7%) for unfavorable neurologic outcomes. Conclusions. The CAHP score demonstrated better discrimination than the MIRACLE2 score, affording superior sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV; however, the CAHP score remains relatively difficult to apply. Further studies are warranted to establish scores with better discrimination and ease of application.

Project description:STUDY OBJECTIVE:It is unknown whether regionalization of postarrest care by interfacility transfer to cardiac arrest receiving centers reduces mortality. We seek to evaluate whether treatment at a cardiac arrest receiving center, whether by direct transport or early interfacility transfer, is independently associated with long-term outcome. METHODS:We performed a retrospective cohort study including adults resuscitated from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in southwestern Pennsylvania and neighboring Ohio, West Virginia, and Maryland, which includes approximately 5.7 million residents in urban, suburban, and rural counties. Patients were treated by 1 of 78 ground emergency medical services agencies or 2 air medical transport agencies between January 1, 2010, and November 30, 2014. Our primary exposures of interest were interfacility transfer to a cardiac arrest receiving center within 24 hours of arrest or any treatment at a cardiac arrest receiving center regardless of transfer status. Our primary outcome was vital status, assessed through December 31, 2014, with National Death Index records. We used unadjusted and adjusted survival analyses to test the independent association of cardiac arrest receiving center care, whether through direct or interfacility transport, on mortality. RESULTS:Overall, 5,217 cases were observed for 3,629 person-years, with 3,865 total deaths. Most patients (82%) were treated at 42 non-cardiac arrest receiving centers with median annual volume of 17 cases (interquartile range 1 to 53 cases per center annually), whereas 18% were cared for at cardiac arrest receiving centers receiving at least 1 interfacility transfer per month. In adjusted models, treatment at a cardiac arrest receiving center was independently associated with reduced hazard of death compared with treatment at a non-cardiac arrest receiving center (adjusted hazard ratio 0.84; 95% confidence interval 0.74 to 0.94). These effects were unchanged when analysis was restricted to patients brought from the scene to the treating hospital. No other hospital characteristic, including total out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patient volume and cardiac catheterization capabilities, independently predicted outcome. CONCLUSION:Both early interfacility transfer to a cardiac arrest receiving center and direct transport to a cardiac arrest receiving center from the scene are independently associated with reduced mortality.

Project description:ImportanceDrug overdose (OD) is a public health challenge and an important cause of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). Existing studies evaluating OD-related OHCA (OD-OHCA) either aggregate all drugs or focus on opioids. The epidemiology, presentation, and outcomes of drug-specific OHCA are largely unknown.ObjectiveTo evaluate the temporal pattern, clinical presentation, care, and outcomes of adult patients with OHCA overall and according to the drug-specific profile.Design, setting, and participantsThis cohort study of adults with OHCA in King County Washington was conducted between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2021. Etiology of OHCA was determined using emergency medical service, hospital, and medical examiner records. Etiology was classified as non-OD OHCA or OD-OHCA, with drug-specific profiles categorized as (1) opioid without stimulant, (2) stimulant without opioid, (3) opioid and stimulant, or (4) all other nonstimulant, nonopioid drugs. Statistical analysis was performed on July 1, 2023.ExposureOut-of-hospital cardiac arrest.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was survival to hospital discharge. The secondary outcome was survival with favorable functional status defined by Cerebral Performance Category 1 or 2 based on review of the hospital record.ResultsIn this cohort study, there were 6790 adult patients with emergency medical services-treated OHCA from a US metropolitan system. During the 7-year study period, there were 702 patients with OD-OHCA (median age, 41 years [IQR, 29-53 years]; 64% male [n = 450] and 36% female [n = 252]) and 6088 patients with non-OD OHCA (median age, 66 years [IQR, 56-77 years]; 65% male [n = 3944] and 35% female [n = 2144]). The incidence of OD-OHCA increased from 5.2 (95% CI, 3.8-6.6) per 100 000 person-years in 2015 to 13.0 (95% CI, 10.9-15.1) per 100 000 person-years in 2021 (P < .001 for trend), whereas there was no significant temporal change in the incidence of non-OD OHCA (P = .30). OD-OHCA were more likely to be unwitnessed (66% [460 of 702] vs 41% [2515 of 6088]) and less likely to be shockable (8% [56 of 702] vs 25% [1529 of 6088]) compared with non-OD OHCA. Unadjusted survival was not different (20% [138 of 702] for OD vs 18% [1095 of 6088] for non-OD). When stratified by drug profile, combined opioid-stimulant OHCA demonstrated the greatest relative increase in incidence. Presentation and outcomes differed by drug profile. Patients with stimulant-only OHCA were more likely to have a shockable rhythm (24% [31 of 129]) compared with patients with opioid-only OHCA (4% [11 of 295]) or patients with combined stimulant-opioid OHCA 5% [10 of 205]), and they were more likely to have a witnessed arrest (50% [64 of 129]) compared with patients with OHCA due to other drugs (19% [14 of 73]) or patients with combined stimulant-opioid OHCA (23% [48 of 205]). Patients with a combined opioid-stimulant OHCA had the lowest survival to hospital discharge (10% [21 of 205]) compared with patients with stimulant-only OHCA (22% [29 of 129]) or patients with OHCA due to other drugs (26% [19 of 73]), a difference that persisted after multivariable adjustment.Conclusions and relevanceIn a population-based cohort study, the incidence of OD-OHCA increased significantly from 2015 to 2021, with the greatest increase observed among patients with a combined stimulant-opioid OHCA. Presentation and outcome differed according to the drug-specific profile. The combination of increasing incidence and lower survival among among patients with a opioid-stimulant OHCA supports prevention and treatment initiatives that consider the drug-specific profile.