Dataset Information

Drug use during adult advanced cardiac life support: An overview of reviews.

ABSTRACT:

Aim

To conduct an overview of systematic reviews and meta-analyses to summarize the ever-growing evidence on drug use during advanced life support.

Methods

We searched Embase, Medline, Cochrane central register of controlled trials and Web of science for systematic reviews and meta-analyses reporting on drug use during advanced life support from inception to March, 2020. Two reviewers independently assessed all abstracts for eligibility, extracted data and assessed risk of bias using the AMSTAR-2 tool. Corrected covered areas were calculated from publication citation matrices to account for potential risk of bias. Data were graphically represented using forest plots.

Results

Twenty-two head-to-head drug comparisons from 47 included articles were analysed. Adrenaline significantly increases the incidence of return of spontaneous circulation and survival to hospital discharge, but not the incidence of neurological intact survival. Vasopressin alone or in combination with adrenaline is not superior to adrenaline alone. There is a trend favouring lidocaine over amiodarone in shockable cardiac arrest. The risk of bias assessment of included studies ranged from very low to very high and the overlap between articles was moderate to high.

Conclusions

In line with the guidelines, we currently suggest that a standard dose of adrenaline should be administered during resuscitation, however, studies assessing lower doses of adrenaline are pressing. There is no rationale for the combination of vasopressin and adrenaline or vasopressin alone instead of adrenaline. In addition, lidocaine is a valuable alternative for amiodarone and maybe even preferable for shockable cardiac arrest. However more research is necessary.

SUBMITTER: Vandersmissen H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8371248 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Defining valid, reliable, defensible, and generalizable standards for the evaluation of learner performance is a key issue in assessing both baseline competence and mastery in medical education. However, before setting these standards of performance, the reliability of the scores yielding from a grading tool must be assessed. Accordingly, the purpose of this study was to assess the reliability of scores generated from a set of grading checklists used by nonexpert raters during simulations of American Heart Association (AHA) Megacodes.The reliability of scores generated from a detailed set of checklists, when used by 4 nonexpert raters, was tested by grading team leader performance in 8 Megacode scenarios. Videos of the scenarios were reviewed and rated by trained faculty facilitators and a group of nonexpert raters. The videos were reviewed "continuously" and "with pauses." The grading made by 2 content experts served as the reference standard, and 4 nonexpert raters were used to test the reliability of the checklists.Our results demonstrate that nonexpert raters are able to produce reliable grades when using the checklists under consideration, demonstrating excellent intrarater reliability and agreement with a reference standard. The results also demonstrate that nonexpert raters can be trained in the proper use of the checklist in a short amount of time, with no discernible learning curve thereafter. Finally, our results show that a single trained rater can achieve reliable scores of team leader performance during AHA Megacodes when using our checklist in a continuous mode because measures of agreement in total scoring were very strong [Lin's (Biometrics 1989;45:255-268) concordance correlation coefficient, 0.96; intraclass correlation coefficient, 0.97].We have shown that our checklists can yield reliable scores, are appropriate for use by nonexpert raters, and are able to be used during continuous assessment of team leader performance during the review of a simulated Megacode. This checklist may be more appropriate for use by advanced cardiac life support instructors during Megacode assessments than the current tools provided by the AHA.

Project description:BackgroundEffective and timely delivery of cardiac arrest interventions during in-hospital cardiac arrest resuscitation is associated with greater survival. Whether a mobile app that provides timely reminders of critical interventions improves adherence to Advanced Cardiovascular Life Support (ACLS) guidelines among house officers, who may lack experience in leading resuscitations, remains unknown.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to assess the impact of a commercially available, dynamic mobile app on house officers' adherence to ACLS guidelines.MethodsAs part of a quality improvement initiative, internal medicine house officers were invited to participate and randomized to lead 2 consecutive cardiac arrest simulations, one with a novel mobile app and one without a novel mobile app. All simulations included 4 cycles of cardiopulmonary resuscitation with different cardiac arrest rhythms and were video recorded. The coprimary end points were chest compression fraction and number of correct interventions in each simulation. The secondary end point was incorrect interventions, defined as interventions not indicated by the 2015 ACLS guidelines. Paired t tests compared performance with and without the mobile app.ResultsAmong 53 house officers, 26 house officers were randomized to lead the first simulation with the mobile app, and 27 house officers were randomized to do so without the app. Use of the mobile app was associated with a higher number of correct ACLS interventions (out of 7; mean 6.2 vs 5.1; absolute difference 1.1 [95% CI 0.6 to 1.6]; P<.001) as well as fewer incorrect ACLS interventions (mean 0.3 vs 1.0; absolute difference -0.7 [95% CI -0.3 to -1.0]; P<.001). Simulations with the mobile app also had a marginally higher chest compression fraction (mean 90.9% vs 89.0%; absolute difference 1.9% [95% CI 0.6% to 3.4%]; P=.007).ConclusionsThis proof-of-concept study suggests that this novel mobile app may improve adherence to ACLS protocols, but its effectiveness on survival in real-world resuscitations remains unknown.