IMPORTANCEIt is unclear whether administration of calcium has a beneficial effect in patients with cardiac arrest. OBJECTIVE To determine whether administration of calcium during out-of-hospital cardiac arrest improves return of spontaneous circulation in adults. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSThis double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial included 397 adult patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest and was conducted in the Central Denmark Region between January 20, 2020, and April 15, 2021. The last 90-day follow-up was on July 15, 2021. INTERVENTIONSThe intervention consisted of up to 2 intravenous or intraosseous doses with 5 mmol of calcium chloride (n = 197) or saline (n = 200). The first dose was administered immediately after the first dose of epinephrine. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESThe primary outcome was sustained return of spontaneous circulation. The secondary outcomes included survival and a favorable neurological outcome (modified Rankin Scale score of 0-3) at 30 days and 90 days. RESULTSBased on a planned interim analysis of 383 patients, the steering committee stopped the trial early due to concerns about harm in the calcium group. Of 397 adult patients randomized, 391 were included in the analyses (193 in the calcium group and 198 in the saline group; mean age, 68 [SD, 14] years; 114 [29%] were female). There was no loss to follow-up. There were 37 patients (19%) in the calcium group who had sustained return of spontaneous circulation compared with 53 patients (27%) in the saline group (risk ratio, 0.72 [95% CI, 0.49 to 1.03]; risk difference, −7.6% [95% CI, −16% to 0.8%]; P = .09). At 30 days, 10 patients (5.2%) in the calcium group and 18 patients (9.1%) in the saline group were alive (risk ratio, 0.57 [95% CI, 0.27 to 1.18]; risk difference, −3.9% [95% CI, −9.4% to 1.3%]; P = .17). A favorable neurological outcome at 30 days was observed in 7 patients (3.6%) in the calcium group and in 15 patients (7.6%) in the saline group (risk ratio, 0.48 [95% CI, 0.20 to 1.12]; risk difference, −4.0% [95% CI, −8.9% to 0.7%]; P = .12). Among the patients with calcium values measured who had return of spontaneous circulation, 26 (74%) in the calcium group and 1 (2%) in the saline group had hypercalcemia.CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Among adults with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, treatment with intravenous or intraosseous calcium compared with saline did not significantly improve sustained return of spontaneous circulation. These results do not support the administration of calcium during out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in adults.
Background Fluid therapy in patients with suspected infection is controversial, and it is not known whether fluid treatment administered in the prehospital setting is beneficial. In the absence of evidence-based guidelines for prehospital fluid therapy for patients with suspected infection, Emergency Medical Services (EMS) personnel are challenged on when and how to initiate such therapy. This study aimed to assess EMS personnel’s decision-making in prehospital fluid therapy, including triggers for initiating fluid and fluid volumes, as well as the need for education and evidence-based guidelines on prehospital fluid therapy in patients with suspected infection. Methods An online survey concerning fluid administration in prehospital patients with suspected infection was distributed to all EMS personnel in the Central Denmark Region, including ambulance clinicians and prehospital critical care anaesthesiologists (PCCA). The survey consisted of sections concerning academic knowledge, statements about fluid administration, triggers to evaluate patient needs for intravenous fluid, and clinical scenarios. Results In total, 468/807 (58%) ambulance clinicians and 106/151 (70%) PCCA responded to the survey. Of the respondents, 73% (n = 341) of the ambulance clinicians and 100% (n = 106) of the PCCA felt confident about administering fluids to prehospital patients with infections. However, both groups primarily based their fluid-related decisions on “clinical intuition”. Ambulance clinicians named the most frequently faced challenges in fluid therapy as “Unsure whether the patient needs fluid” and “Unsure about the volume of fluid the patient needs”. The five most frequently used triggers for evaluating fluid needs were blood pressure, history taking, skin turgor, capillary refill time, and shock index, the last of which only applied to ambulance clinicians. In the scenarios, the majority administered 500 ml to a normotensive woman with suspected sepsis and 1000 ml to a woman with suspected sepsis-related hypotension. Moreover, 97% (n = 250) of the ambulance clinicians strongly agreed or agreed that they were interested in more education about fluid therapy in patients with suspected infection. Conclusion The majority of ambulance clinicians and PCCA based their fluid administration on “clinical intuition”. They faced challenges deciding on fluid volumes and individual fluid needs. Thus, they were eager to learn more and requested research and evidence-based guidelines.
Aim: To Q3 evaluate the eect of pre-charging the defibrillator before rhythm analysis on hands-o time in patients suering from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest with shockable rhythm.Methods: Pre-charging was implemented in the Emergency Medical Service in the Central Denmark Region in June 2018. Training consisted of hands-on simulation scenarios, e-learning material, and written instructions. Data were extracted from the Danish Cardiac Arrest Registry for a 14month period spanning the implementation of pre-charging. Patients having received at least one shock were included. Transthoracic impedance data were analysed. We recorded hands-o time and peri-shock pauses for all defibrillation procedures and the total hands-o fraction for all cardiac arrests.Results: Impedance and outcome data were available for 178 patients. 523 defibrillation procedures were analysed. The pre-charge method was associated with shorter median hands-o time per defibrillation procedure (7.6 (IQR 5.8-9.9) vs. 12.6 (IQR 10-16.4) seconds, p < 0.001) but longer pre-shock pause (4 (IQR 2.7-6.1) vs 1.7 (IQR 1.2-3) seconds, p < 0.001) when compared to the currently guideline-recommended defibrillation method. The total hands-o fraction per cardiac arrest was reduced after implementation of the pre-charge method (16.5% vs. 20.4%, p = 0.003).No increase in shocks to non-shockable rhythms or personnel was registered. Patients who received only pre-charge defibrillations had an increased odds ratio of return of spontaneous circulation (aOR 2.91; 95%CI 1.09-7.8, p = 0.03). Conclusion:Pre-charging the defibrillator reduced hands-o time during defibrillation procedures, reduces the total hands-o fraction and may be associated with increased return of spontaneous circulation in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest with shockable rhythm.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.