Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-skm99 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-27T00:25:21.662Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Prehospital Disposition and Patient Outcomes in Cardiac Arrest AFTER Resuscitation Termination Protocol Change in an Urban Setting

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 April 2020

Brian H. Cheung*
Affiliation:
Department of Emergency Medicine, University of California at San Francisco, San Francisco, CaliforniaUSA
Mary P. Mercer
Affiliation:
Department of Emergency Medicine, University of California at San Francisco, San Francisco, CaliforniaUSA
*
Correspondence: Brian H. Cheung, MD, PhD, 505 Parnassus Ave, M024, San Francisco, California94143USA, E-mail: brian.cheung@ucsf.edu

Abstract

Introduction:

Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) is a leading cause of death in the United States, and efforts have been made to develop termination of resuscitation protocols utilizing clinical criteria predictive of successful resuscitation and survival to discharge. A termination of resuscitation protocol utilizing longer resuscitation time and end-tidal carbon dioxide (EtCO2) monitoring criteria for termination was implemented for Emergency Medical Service (EMS) providers in an urban prehospital system in 2017. This study examines the effect the modified termination of resuscitation protocol had on rates of patient transport to a hospital, return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), and survival to discharge.

Methods:

A retrospective analysis was performed utilizing data from the Cardiac Arrest Registry to Enhance Survival (CARES) database. A total of 1,005 prehospital cardiac arrest patients 18 years and older from 2016 through 2017 were included in the analysis. Patients with traumatic cardiac arrest or had valid do-not-resuscitate orders were excluded. Unadjusted analysis using chi-square statistics was performed, including an analysis stratified by Utstein style reporting. Adjusted analysis was also performed using logistic regression with multiple imputation for missing values.

Results:

Unadjusted analysis showed a significant decrease in ROSC on emergency department (ED) arrival (30% versus 13%; P <.001) following the change in protocol. There was no significant difference in patient transport rate (62%) and a statistically non-significant decrease in overall survival (15% versus 11%). When stratified by Utstein style analysis, statistically significant decreases in ED arrival with ROSC were seen for unwitnessed asystolic, as well as bystander witnessed asystolic, pulseless electrical activity (PEA), and shockable OHCA. Adjusted analysis showed a decreased likelihood of ROSC with the protocol change (0.337; 95% CI, 0.235-0.482).

Conclusion:

The modification of termination of resuscitation protocol was not associated with a statistically significant change in transport rate or survival. A significant decrease in rate of arrivals to the ED with ROSC was seen, particularly for bystander witnessed OHCA.

Type
Original Research
Copyright
© World Association for Disaster and Emergency Medicine 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Mozaffarian, D, Benjamin, EJ, Go, AS, et al.Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics-2015 Update: A Report from the American Heart Association. Vol 131. Dallas, Texas USA: AHA; 2015.Google Scholar
Morrison, LJ, Visentin, LM, Kiss, A, et al.Validation of a rule for termination of resuscitation in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. N Engl J Med. 2006;355(5):478487.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jordan, MR, O’Keefe, MF, Weiss, D, Cubberley, CW, MacLean, CD, Wolfson, DL.Implementation of the universal BLS termination of resuscitation rule in a rural EMS system. Resuscitation. 2017;118:7581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sasson, C, Hegg, AJ, Macy, M, Park, A, Kellermann, A, McNally, B.Prehospital termination of resuscitation in case of refractory out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. JAMA. 2008;300(12):14321438.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cheong, RWL, Li, H, Doctor, NE, et al.Termination of resuscitation rules to predict neurological outcomes in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest for an Intermediate Life Support prehospital system. Prehosp Emerg Care. 2016;20(5):623629.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jaslow, D, Barbera, JA, Johnson, E, Moore, W.Termination of nontraumatic cardiac arrest resuscitative efforts in the field: a national survey. Acad Emerg Med. 1997;4(9):904907.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Levine, RL, Wayne, MA, Miller, CC.End-tidal carbon dioxide and outcome of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. N Engl J Med. 1997;337(5):301306.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ahrens, T, Schallom, L, Bettorf, K, et al.End-tidal carbon dioxide measurements as a prognostic indicator of outcome in cardiac arrest. Am J Crit Care. 2001;10(6):391398.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wayne, MA, Levine, RL, Miller, CC.Use of end-tidal carbon dioxide to predict outcome in prehospital cardiac arrest. Ann Emerg Med. 1995;25(6):762767.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eckstein, M, Hatch, L, Malleck, J, McClung, C, Henderson, SO.End-tidal CO2 as a predictor of survival in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2011;26(03):148150.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chan, PS, McNally, B, Tang, F, Kellermann, A.Recent trends in survival from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in the United States. Circulation. 2014;130(21):18761882.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Larribau, R, Deham, H, Niquille, M, Sarasin, FP.Improvement of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest survival rate after implementation of the 2010 resuscitation guidelines. PLoS One. 2018;13(9):117.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
United States Census Bureau. QuickFacts San Francisco County, California; California; UNITED STATES. Suitland, Maryland USA: US Census Bureau; 2017.Google Scholar
San Francisco EMS Agency. Policy 500 Destination Policy. San Francisco EMS Agency Policy Manual. https://sfdem.org/sites/default/files/EMS%20AGENCY%20POLICY%20MANUAL_eff_%20Jan%2030-2017v2.pdf. Published 2017. Accessed May 31, 2018.Google Scholar
San Francisco EMS Agency. Policy 4050 Death in Field. San Francisco EMS Agency Policy Manual. https://sfdem.org/sites/default/files/Documents/ENTIRE%20POLICY%20MANUAL_08-01-2016.pdf. Published 2016. Accessed May 31, 2018.Google Scholar
San Francisco EMS Agency. Policy 4050 Death in Field. San Francisco EMS Agency Policy Manual. https://sfdem.org/sites/default/files/EMS%20AGENCY%20POLICY%20MANUAL_eff_%20Jan%2030-2017v2.pdf. Published 2017. Accessed May 31, 2018.Google Scholar
McNally, B, Stokes, A, Crouch, A, Kellermann, AL.CARES: Cardiac Arrest Registry to Enhance Survival. Ann Emerg Med. 2009;54(5):674683.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cardiac Arrest Registry to Enhance Survival 2017 Annual Report. Atlanta, Georgia USA: Emory University; 2017.Google Scholar
Jacobs, I, Nadkarni, V, Bahr, J, et al.Cardiac arrest and cardiopulmonary resuscitation outcome reports: update and simplification of the Utstein templates for resuscitation registries. A statement for healthcare professionals from a task force of the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation. Circulation. 2004;110(21):33853397.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
White, IR, Royston, P, Wood, AM.Multiple imputation using chained equations: issues and guidance for practice. Stat Med. 2011;30(4):377399.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rubin, DB, Schenker, N.Multiple imputation in health-care databases: an overview and some applications. Stat Med. 1991;10(4):585598.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
United States Census Bureau. Income in the Past 12 Months (in 2016 Inflation Adjusted Dollars) Table S190. 2012-2016 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates. http://factfinder.census.gov. Accessed March 3, 2018.Google Scholar
Mancini, ME, Diekema, DS, Hoadley, TA, et al. 2015 American Heart Association Guidelines Update for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care, Part 3: Ethical Issues. Circulation. 2015;132(18 suppl 2):383396.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Supplementary material: File

Cheung and Mercer supplementary material

Appendices A and B

Download Cheung and Mercer supplementary material(File)
File 17.7 KB