Article

Cardiocerebral resuscitation for cardiac arrest

The University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, United States
The American journal of medicine (Impact Factor: 5.3). 02/2006; 119(1):6-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2005.06.067
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Survival rates from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest continue to be low despite periodic updates in the Guidelines for Emergency Medical Services and periodic improvements such as the addition of automatic external defibrillators (AEDs). The low incidence of bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), substantial time without chest compressions throughout the resuscitation effort, and a lack of response to initial defibrillation after prolonged ventricular fibrillation contribute to these unacceptably poor results. Resuscitation guidelines are only revised every 5 to 7 years and can be difficult to change because of the lack of randomized controlled trials in humans. Such trials are rare because of a number of logistical difficulties, including the problem of obtaining informed consent. An alternative approach to advancing resuscitation science is for evidence-based demonstration projects in areas that have adequate records, so that one may determine whether the new approach improves survival. This is reasonable because the current guidelines make provisions for deviations under certain local circumstances or as directed by the emergency medical services medical director. A wealth of experimental evidence indicates that interruption of chest compressions for any reason in patients with cardiac arrest is deleterious. Accordingly, a new approach to out-of-hospital cardiac arrest called cardiocerebral resuscitation (CCR) was developed that places more emphasis on chest compressions for witnessed cardiac arrest in adults and de-emphasizes ventilation. There is also emphasis on chest compressions before defibrillation in circulatory phase of cardiac arrest. CCR was initiated in Tucson, Arizona, in November 2003, and in two rural Wisconsin counties in early 2004.

0 Followers
 · 
194 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Introduction and objectives Patients who survive a cardiac arrest have a poor short-term prognosis in terms of mortality and neurological function. The use of mild hypothermia has been investigated in only a few randomized studies, but appears to be effective for treating these patients. The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of this treatment on survival and neurological outcomes. Methods We compared mild hypothermia and usual treatment in patients who had experienced a prolonged cardiac arrest due to ventricular fibrillation or tachycardia and who showed signs of neurological damage. Patient were divided into two groups: a control group of 28 patients and a group of 41 patients who were treated with hypothermia. Patients were assessed at discharge and at 6 months. Results There was no significant difference between the two groups in baseline characteristics, including those of the cardiac arrest, or in the time to treatment. At discharge, neurological status was good in 18 patients (43.9%) in the hypothermia group but in only five (17.9%) in the control group (risk ratio=2.46; 95% confidence interval, 1.11-3.98; P=.029). At 6 months after discharge, neurological status was found to be good in 19 patients (46.3%) in the treatment group and six (21.4%) in the control group (risk ratio=2.16; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-3.36; P=.038). The effect of hypothermia may have been affected by various confounding factors. Conclusions Our findings demonstrate that hypothermic treatment after cardiac arrest prolonged by ventricular fibrillation or tachycardia helps improve the prognosis of anoxic encephalopathy.
    Revista Espa de Cardiologia 07/2009; 62(7). DOI:10.1016/S0300-8932(09)71686-0 · 3.34 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objective. To determine the differences in survival for outof- hospital advanced airway intervention (AAI) compared with basic airway intervention (BAI) in cardiac arrest. Background. AAI is commonly utilized in cardiac arrest in the out-of-hospital setting as a means to secure the airway. Observational studies and clinical trials of AAI suggest that AAI is associated with worse outcomes in terms of survival. No controlled trials exist that compares AAI to BAI. Methods. We conducted a bias-adjusted meta-analysis on 17 observational studies. The outcomes were survival, short-term (return of spontaneous circulation and to hospital admission), and longer-term (to discharge, to one month survival). We undertook sensitivity analyses by analyzing patients separately: those who were 16 years and older, nontrauma only, and attempted versus successful AAI. Results. This metaanalysis included 388,878 patients. The short-term survival for AAI compared to BAI were overall OR 0.84(95% CI 0.62 to 1.13), for endotracheal intubation (ETI) OR 0.79 (95% CI 0.54 to 1.16), and for supraglottic airways (SGA) OR 0.59 (95% CI 0.39 to 0.89). Long-term survival for AAI were overall OR 0.49 (95% CI 0.37 to 0.65), for ETI OR 0.48 (95% CI 0.36 to 0.64), and for SGA OR 0.35 (95% CI 0.28 to 0.44). Sensitivity analyses shows that limiting analyses to adults, non-trauma victims, and instances where AAI was both attempted and successful did not alter results meaningfully. A third of all studies did not adjust for any other confounding factors that could impact on survival. Conclusions. This meta-analysis shows decreased survival for AAIs used out-of-hospital in Received June 2, 2013, from Paramedics Australasia (PFF), Sydney, New South Wales, Australia; the University of Western Sydney, School of Science and Health (PMS), Sydney, New SouthWales, Australia; Department of Anaesthesia, Gosford Hospital (JB), Gosford, New South Wales, Australia; Australia and New Zealand College of Paramedicine (RET), Sydney, New SouthWales, Australia; Section of EMS, Department of EmergencyMedicine, Yale University School of Medicine (DCC), New Haven, Connecticut; University of Queensland, School of Population Health (SARD), Brisbane, Queensland, Australia. Revision received June 16, 2013; accepted for publication June 27, 2013. The authors report no conflicts of interest. The authors alone are responsible for the content and writing of the paper. Address correspondence to Pieter Francsois Fouche, Locked Bag 105, Rozelle, NSW, 2039, Australia. e-mail: PFouche@ambulance. nsw.gov.au doi: 10.3109/10903127.2013.831509 cardiac arrest, but are likely biased due to confounding, especially confounding by indication. A properly conducted prospective study or a controlled trial is urgently needed and are possible to do. Key words: cardiac arrest; cardiopulmonary resuscitation; emergency medical services; endotracheal intubation; laryngeal mask airway; meta-analysis
    Prehospital Emergency Care 12/2013; · 1.81 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Abstract Objective. To determine the differences in survival for out-of-hospital advanced airway intervention (AAI) compared with basic airway intervention (BAI) in cardiac arrest. Background. AAI is commonly utilized in cardiac arrest in the out-of-hospital setting as a means to secure the airway. Observational studies and clinical trials of AAI suggest that AAI is associated with worse outcomes in terms of survival. No controlled trials exist that compares AAI to BAI. Methods. We conducted a bias-adjusted meta-analysis on 17 observational studies. The outcomes were survival, short-term (return of spontaneous circulation and to hospital admission), and longer-term (to discharge, to one month survival). We undertook sensitivity analyses by analyzing patients separately: those who were 16 years and older, nontrauma only, and attempted versus successful AAI. Results. This meta-analysis included 388,878 patients. The short-term survival for AAI compared to BAI were overall OR 0.84(95% CI 0.62 to 1.13), for endotracheal intubation (ETI) OR 0.79 (95% CI 0.54 to 1.16), and for supraglottic airways (SGA) OR 0.59 (95% CI 0.39 to 0.89). Long-term survival for AAI were overall OR 0.49 (95% CI 0.37 to 0.65), for ETI OR 0.48 (95% CI 0.36 to 0.64), and for SGA OR 0.35 (95% CI 0.28 to 0.44). Sensitivity analyses shows that limiting analyses to adults, non-trauma victims, and instances where AAI was both attempted and successful did not alter results meaningfully. A third of all studies did not adjust for any other confounding factors that could impact on survival. Conclusions. This meta-analysis shows decreased survival for AAIs used out-of-hospital in cardiac arrest, but are likely biased due to confounding, especially confounding by indication. A properly conducted prospective study or a controlled trial is urgently needed and are possible to do.
    Prehospital Emergency Care 10/2013; 18(2). DOI:10.3109/10903127.2013.831509 · 1.81 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Download
22 Downloads
Available from
Jul 9, 2014