No abstract

Aims The purpose of this study was to develop a practical risk score to predict poor neurological outcome after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OOHCA) for use on arrival to a Heart Attack Centre. Methods and results From May 2012 to December 2017, 1055 patients had OOHCA in our region, of whom 373 patients were included in the King’s Out of Hospital Cardiac Arrest Registry (KOCAR). We performed prediction modelling with multivariable logistic regression to identify predictors of the primary outcome to derive a risk score. This was externally validated in two independent cohorts comprising 473 patients. The primary endpoint was poor neurological outcome at 6-month follow-up (Cerebral Performance Category 3–5). Seven independent predictors of outcome were identified: missed (unwitnessed) arrest, initial non-shockable rhythm, non-reactivity of pupils, age (60–80 years—1 point; >80 years—3 points), changing intra-arrest rhythms, low pH <7.20, and epinephrine administration (2 points). The MIRACLE2 score had an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.90 in the development and 0.84/0.91 in the validation cohorts. Three risk groups were defined—low risk (MIRACLE2 ≤2—5.6% risk of poor outcome); intermediate risk (MIRACLE2 of 3–4—55.4% of poor outcome); and high risk (MIRACLE2 ≥5—92.3% risk of poor outcome). The MIRACLE2 score had superior discrimination than the OHCA [median AUC 0.83 (0.818–0.840); P < 0.001] and Cardiac Arrest Hospital Prognosis models [median AUC 0.87 (0.860–0.870; P = 0.001] and equivalent performance with the Target Temperature Management score [median AUC 0.88 (0.876–0.887); P = 0.092]. Conclusions The MIRACLE2 is a practical risk score for early accurate prediction of poor neurological outcome after OOHCA, which has been developed for simplicity of use on admission.

BackgroundDespite the widespread use of implantable cardioverter‐defibrillators (ICDs) in clinical practice, concerns exist regarding ICD lead durability. The performance of specific lead designs and factors determining this in large populations need clarification.Methods and ResultsThe Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Collaboration databases were searched for studies including ≥2 of the most commonly implanted leads. The Mantel‐Haenszel random‐effects model was used. Seventeen studies were selected, including a total of 49 871 patients—5538 implanted with Durata (St. Jude Medical Inc), 10 605 with Endotak Reliance (Boston Scientific), 16 119 with Sprint Quattro (Medtronic Corp), 11 709 with Sprint Fidelis (Medtronic Corp), and 5900 with Riata (St. Jude Medical Inc)—with follow‐up of 136 509 lead‐years. Although the Durata lead presented a numerically higher rate, no statistically significant differences in the mean incidence of lead failure (0.29%–0.45% per year) were observed in comparison of the 3 nonrecalled leads. A higher event rate was documented with the Riata (1.0% per‐year increase) and Sprint Fidelis (>2.0% per‐year increase) leads compared with nonrecalled leads. An indication of increased incidence of Durata lead failure versus Sprint Quattro and Endotak Reliance leads was observed in 1 of 3 included studies, allowing for comparison of purely electrical lead failure, but this requires further evaluation.ConclusionsEndotak Reliance (8F), Sprint Quattro (8F), and Durata (7F) leads displayed low annual incidence of failure; however, long‐term follow‐up data are still scarce. More data are needed to clarify the performance and safety of the Durata lead.

On 30 December 2020, the UK announced a deviation from the recommended protocol for the Pfizer-BioNTech covid-19 vaccine, prolonging the interval between doses from 3 to 12 weeks. 1 2 Similar decisions were made for the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine, for which a longer gap between doses had been shown to improve efficacy in some age groups. 3 The stated intention was to maximise benefit with limited supplies and to minimise hospital admissions and deaths. For the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, the decision to delay the second dose was based on extrapolations from phase III trial data showing an efficacy of 89% 15-21 days after the first dose. 4 5 At the time, Pfizer did not support the decision, stating that high efficacy could not be guaranteed. 6

No abstract