Background: Strict glycaemic control (SGC) has become a contentious issue in modern intensive care. Physicians and nurses are concerned about the increased workload due to SGC as well as causing harm through hypoglycaemia. The objective of our study was to evaluate our existing degree of glycaemic control, and to implement SGC safely in our ICU through a nurse-led implementation of an algorithm for intensive insulin-therapy.
Background Variation in the incidence, survival rate and factors associated with survival after cardiac arrest in Europe is reported. Some studies have tried to fill the knowledge gap regarding the epidemiology of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in Europe but were unable to identify reasons for the reported differences. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to describe European Emergency Medical Systems, particularly from the perspective of country and ambulance service characteristics, cardiac arrest identification, dispatch, treatment, and monitoring. Methods An online questionnaire with 51 questions about ambulance and dispatch characteristics, on-scene management of cardiac arrest and the availability and dataset in cardiac arrest registries, was sent to all national coordinators who participated in the European Registry of Cardiac Arrest studies. In addition, individual invitations were sent to the remaining European countries. Results Participants from 28 European countries responded to the questionnaire. Results were combined with official information on population density. Overall, the number of Emergency Medical Service missions, level of training of personnel, availability of Helicopter Emergency Medical Services and the involvement of first responders varied across and within countries. There were similarities in team training, availability of key resuscitation equipment and permission for ongoing performance of cardiopulmonary resuscitation during transported. The quality of reporting to cardiac arrest registries varied, as well as the data availability in the registries. Conclusions Throughout Europe there are important differences in Emergency Medical Service systems and the response to out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Explaining these differences is complicated due to significant variation in how variables are reported to and used in registries.
Aim: To compare the outcomes in patients with refractory out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) fulfilling the criteria for extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) before and after implementation of an ECPR protocol, whether the patient received ECPR or not. Methods:We compared cardiac arrest registry data before (2014À2015) and after (2016À2019) implementation of the ECPR protocol. The ECPR criteria were presumed cardiac origin, witnessed arrest with ventricular fibrillation, bystander CPR, age 18À65, advanced life support (ALS) within 15 min and ALS > 10 min without return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC). The primary outcome was 30-day survival; the secondary outcomes were sustained ROSC, neurological outcome and the proportion of patients transported with ongoing ALS.Results: There were 1086 and 3135 patients in the pre-and post-implementation sample; 48 (4%) and 100 (3%) met the ECPR criteria, respectively. Of these, 21 (44%) vs. 37 (37%) were alive after 30 days, p = 0.4, and 30 (63%) vs. 50 (50%) achieved sustained ROSC, p = 0.2. All survivors in the preimplementation sample had cerebral performance category 1À2 vs. 30 (81%) in the post-implementation sample, p = 0.03. Of the patients fulfilling the ECPR criteria, 7 (15%) and 26 (26%), p = 0.1, were transported with ongoing ALS in the pre-and post-implementation sample, respectively.Conclusions: There were no differences in 30-day survival or prehospital ROSC in patients with refractory OHCA before and after initiation of an ECPR protocol.
Background Variation in the incidence, survival rate and factors associated with survival after cardiac arrest in Europe is reported. Some studies have tried to fill the knowledge gap regarding the epidemiology of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in Europe but were unable to identify reasons for the reported differences. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to describe European Emergency Medical Systems, particularly from the perspective of country and ambulance service characteristics, cardiac arrest identification, dispatch, treatment, and monitoring. Methods An online questionnaire with 51 questions about ambulance and dispatch characteristics, on-scene management of cardiac arrest and the availability and dataset in cardiac arrest registries, was sent to all national coordinators who participated in the European Registry of Cardiac Arrest studies. In addition, individual invitations were sent to the remaining European countries. Results Participants from 28 European countries responded to the questionnaire. Results were combined with official information on population density. Overall, the number of Emergency Medical Service missions, level of training of personnel, availability of Helicopter Emergency Medical Services and the involvement of first responders varied across and within countries. There were similarities in team training, availability of key resuscitation equipment and permission for ongoing performance of cardiopulmonary resuscitation during transported. The quality of reporting to cardiac arrest registries varied, as well as the data availability in the registries. Conclusions Throughout Europe there are important differences in Emergency Medical Service systems and the response to out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Explaining these differences is complicated due to significant variation in how variables are reported to and used in registries.
ObjectivesHealth registries are a unique source of information about current practice and can describe disease burden in a population. We aimed to understand similarities and differences in the German Resuscitation Registry (GRR) and the Norwegian Cardiac Arrest Registry (NorCAR) and compare incidence and survival for patients resuscitated after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.DesignA cross-sectional comparative analysis reporting incidence and outcome on a population level.SettingWe included data from the cardiac arrest registries in Germany and Norway.ParticipantsPatients resuscitated between 1 January 2015 and 31 December 2019 were included, resulting in 29 222 cases from GRR and 16 406 cases from NorCAR. From GRR, only emergency medical services (EMS) reporting survival information for patients admitted to the hospital were included.Primary and secondary outcome measuresThis study focused on the EMS systems, the registries and the patients included in both registries. The results compare the total incidence, incidence of patients resuscitated by EMS, and the incidence of survival.ResultsWe found an incidence of 68 per 100 000 inhabitants in GRR and 63 in NorCAR. The incidence of patients treated by EMS was 67 in GRR and 53 in NorCAR. The incidence of patients arriving at a hospital was higher in GRR (24.3) than in NorCAR (15.1), but survival was similar (8 in GRR and 7.8 in NorCAR).ConclusionGRR is a voluntary registry, and in-hospital information is not reported for all cases. NorCAR has mandatory reporting from all EMS and hospitals. EMS in Germany starts treatment on more patients and bring a higher number to hospital, but we found no difference in the incidence of survival. This study has improved our knowledge of both registries and highlighted the importance of reporting survival as incidence when comparing registries.
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.