The Time-Dependent Yield of Standard vs. Invasive Resuscitation Strategies: A Secondary Analysis of the Prague Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest Study.

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation Heart arrest Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest cardiopulmonary resuscitation

Journal

Resuscitation
ISSN: 1873-1570
Titre abrégé: Resuscitation
Pays: Ireland
ID NLM: 0332173

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
01 Aug 2024
Historique:
received: 13 05 2024
revised: 26 07 2024
accepted: 29 07 2024
medline: 4 8 2024
pubmed: 4 8 2024
entrez: 3 8 2024
Statut: aheadofprint

Résumé

It is unclear how invasive resuscitative protocols may impact the time-dependent prognosis of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) resuscitations, or the relationship between intra-arrest transport and outcomes. We performed a secondary analysis of the Prague OHCA Study, which randomized refractory OHCAs to "invasive" (intra-arrest transport for possible ECPR initiation) vs. "standard" resuscitation strategies (predominantly performed on-scene). Between groups, we compared outcomes of the initial resuscitation and 180- and 30-day favourable neurological outcomes (CPC 1-2), and within categories based on resuscitation duration (collapse-to-ROSC/ECPR interval). We plotted the dynamic probability of favourable outcomes with increasing durations of unsuccessful resuscitation. Among invasive and standard groups, respectively: 34/124 (27%) vs. 58/132 (44%) had sustained ROSC (difference -17%, 95%CI -5.0, -28); 38/124 (31%) vs. 24/132 (18%) had 30-day favourable neurological outcomes (difference 12%; 95%CI 2.0, 23); and 39/124 (31%) vs. 29/132 (22%) had 180-day favourable neurological outcomes (difference 9.5%; 95%CI -1.3, 20). For favourable outcome cases: standard group resuscitation durations were right-skewed within the first 60 minutes; for the invasive group the distribution was bimodal, extending to 77 minutes. For invasive- and standard-treated cases, the probability of favourable outcomes among those in refractory arrest at 30 minutes was 28% and 7.6%, respectively; declining to 0% at 77 and 60 minutes. In comparison to standard resuscitation, invasive strategy cases had fewer achieve sustained ROSC, however improved overall 30-day favourable neurological outcomes. While standard resuscitation yield was limited to <60 minutes, invasive protocols offer a second extended window of potential successful resuscitation.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
It is unclear how invasive resuscitative protocols may impact the time-dependent prognosis of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) resuscitations, or the relationship between intra-arrest transport and outcomes.
METHODS METHODS
We performed a secondary analysis of the Prague OHCA Study, which randomized refractory OHCAs to "invasive" (intra-arrest transport for possible ECPR initiation) vs. "standard" resuscitation strategies (predominantly performed on-scene). Between groups, we compared outcomes of the initial resuscitation and 180- and 30-day favourable neurological outcomes (CPC 1-2), and within categories based on resuscitation duration (collapse-to-ROSC/ECPR interval). We plotted the dynamic probability of favourable outcomes with increasing durations of unsuccessful resuscitation.
RESULTS RESULTS
Among invasive and standard groups, respectively: 34/124 (27%) vs. 58/132 (44%) had sustained ROSC (difference -17%, 95%CI -5.0, -28); 38/124 (31%) vs. 24/132 (18%) had 30-day favourable neurological outcomes (difference 12%; 95%CI 2.0, 23); and 39/124 (31%) vs. 29/132 (22%) had 180-day favourable neurological outcomes (difference 9.5%; 95%CI -1.3, 20). For favourable outcome cases: standard group resuscitation durations were right-skewed within the first 60 minutes; for the invasive group the distribution was bimodal, extending to 77 minutes. For invasive- and standard-treated cases, the probability of favourable outcomes among those in refractory arrest at 30 minutes was 28% and 7.6%, respectively; declining to 0% at 77 and 60 minutes.
CONCLUSION CONCLUSIONS
In comparison to standard resuscitation, invasive strategy cases had fewer achieve sustained ROSC, however improved overall 30-day favourable neurological outcomes. While standard resuscitation yield was limited to <60 minutes, invasive protocols offer a second extended window of potential successful resuscitation.

Identifiants

pubmed: 39097078
pii: S0300-9572(24)00241-7
doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2024.110347
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

110347

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

Declaration of competing interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: [Dr. Belohlavek reports having received lecture honoraria from the Getinge and Resuscitec Companies].

Auteurs

Brian Grunau (B)

Departments of Emergency Medicine, St. Paul's Hospital and the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada. Electronic address: Brian.Grunau@ubc.ca.

Daniel Rob (D)

2nd Department of Medicine, Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University in Prague and General University Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic.

Michal Huptych (M)

Czech Institute of Informatics, Robotics and Cybernetics (CIIRC), Czech Technical University, Prague, Czech Republic.

Jan Pudil (J)

2nd Department of Medicine, Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University in Prague and General University Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic.

Štěpán Havránek (Š)

2nd Department of Medicine, Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University in Prague and General University Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic.

Petra Kaválková (P)

2nd Department of Medicine, Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University in Prague and General University Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic.

Jana Šmalcová (J)

2nd Department of Medicine, Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University in Prague and General University Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic; Emergency Medical Service, Prague, Czech Republic.

Jan Bělohlávek (J)

2nd Department of Medicine, Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University in Prague and General University Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic.

Classifications MeSH