BackgroundBystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) improves the likelihood of survival from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA), yet it is performed in only 30% of cases. The 2010 guidelines promote chest-compression-only bystander CPR—a change intended to increase willingness to provide CPR.Objectives1) To determine whether the Canadian general public is more willing to perform chest-compression-only CPR compared to traditional CPR; 2) to characterize public knowledge of OHCA; and 3) to identify barriers and facilitators to bystander CPR.MethodsA 32-item survey assessing resuscitation knowledge, and willingness to provide CPR were disseminated in five Canadian regions. Descriptive statistics were used to characterize response distribution. Logistic regression analysis was applied to assess shifts in intention to provide CPR.ResultsA total of 428 completed surveys were analysed. When presented with a scenario of being a bystander in an OHCA, a greater proportion of respondents were willing to provide chest-compression-only CPR compared to traditional CPR for all victims (61.5% v. 39.7%, p<0.001), when the victim was a stranger (55.1% v. 38.8%, p<0.001), or when the victim was an unkempt individual (47.9% v. 28.5%, p<0.001). When asked to describe an OHCA, 41.4% said the heart stopped beating, and 20.8% said it was a heart attack. Identified barriers and facilitators included fear of litigation and lack of skill confidence.ConclusionsThis study identified gaps in knowledge, which may impair the ability of bystanders to act in OHCA. Most respondents expressed greater willingness to provide chest-compression-only CPR, but this was mediated by victim characteristics, skill confidence, and recognition of a cardiac arrest.

BackgroundThere is currently conflicting evidence surrounding the effects of obesity on postoperative outcomes. Previous studies have found obesity to be associated with adverse events, but others have found no association. The aim of this study was to determine whether increasing body mass index (BMI) is an independent risk factor for development of major postoperative complications.MethodsThis was a multicentre prospective cohort study across the UK and Republic of Ireland. Consecutive patients undergoing elective or emergency gastrointestinal surgery over a 4‐month interval (October–December 2014) were eligible for inclusion. The primary outcome was the 30‐day major complication rate (Clavien–Dindo grade III–V). BMI was grouped according to the World Health Organization classification. Multilevel logistic regression models were used to adjust for patient, operative and hospital‐level effects, creating odds ratios (ORs) and 95 per cent confidence intervals (c.i.).ResultsOf 7965 patients, 2545 (32·0 per cent) were of normal weight, 2673 (33·6 per cent) were overweight and 2747 (34·5 per cent) were obese. Overall, 4925 (61·8 per cent) underwent elective and 3038 (38·1 per cent) emergency operations. The 30‐day major complication rate was 11·4 per cent (908 of 7965). In adjusted models, a significant interaction was found between BMI and diagnosis, with an association seen between BMI and major complications for patients with malignancy (overweight: OR 1·59, 95 per cent c.i. 1·12 to 2·29, P = 0·008; obese: OR 1·91, 1·31 to 2·83, P = 0·002; compared with normal weight) but not benign disease (overweight: OR 0·89, 0·71 to 1·12, P = 0·329; obese: OR 0·84, 0·66 to 1·06, P = 0·147).ConclusionOverweight and obese patients undergoing surgery for gastrointestinal malignancy are at increased risk of major postoperative complications compared with those of normal weight.

Background: Patient selection for critical care admission must balance patient safety with optimal resource allocation. This study aimed to determine the relationship between critical care admission, and postoperative mortality after abdominal surgery. Methods: This prespecified secondary analysis of a multicentre, prospective, observational study included consecutive patients enrolled in the DISCOVER study from UK and Republic of Ireland undergoing major gastrointestinal and liver surgery between October and December 2014. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality. Multivariate logistic regression was used to explore associations between critical care admission (planned and unplanned) and mortality, and intercentre variation in critical care admission after emergency laparotomy. Results: Of 4529 patients included, 37.8% (n¼1713) underwent planned critical care admissions from theatre. Some 3.1% (n¼86/2816) admitted to ward-level care subsequently underwent unplanned critical care admission. Overall 30-day mortality was 2.9% (n¼133/4519), and the risk-adjusted association between 30-day mortality and critical care admission was higher in unplanned [odds ratio (OR): 8.65, 95% confidence interval (CI): 3.51e19.97) than planned admissions (OR: 2.32, 95% CI: 1.43e3.85). Some 26.7% of patients (n¼1210/4529) underwent emergency laparotomies. After adjustment, 49.3% (95% CI: 46.8e51.9%, P<0.001) were predicted to have planned critical care admissions, with 7% (n¼10/145) of centres outside the 95% CI. Conclusions: After risk adjustment, no 30-day survival benefit was identified for either planned or unplanned postoperative admissions to critical care within this cohort. This likely represents appropriate admission of the highest-risk patients. Planned admissions in selected, intermediate-risk patients may present a strategy to mitigate the risk of unplanned admission. Substantial inter-centre variation exists in planned critical care admissions after emergency laparotomies.

A 65-year-old male with ischemic cardiomyopathy, secondary prevention implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD), diabetes, dyslipidemia and hypertension presents to your emergency department (ED). He reports 10 ICD shocks over the past 12 h. He reports palpitations and light-headedness preceding the ICD shocks. There was no loss of consciousness, chest pain, nor shortness of breath. His vital signs are stable and he is afebrile. His exam is unremarkable. Clinical questions What is the definition and clinical epidemiology of electrical storm?Electrical storm refers to the occurrence of three or more episodes of sustained ventricular tachycardia (VT) or ventricular fibrillation (VF) over a 24-h period. In patients with an ICD, the definition of electrical storm is accepted as three appropriate detections of ventricular arrhythmia that lead to ICD therapies (either anti-tachycardia pacing or shock) within 24 h. The incidence of electrical storm after ICD implantation ranges from 4% (primary prevention ICDs) [1] to 33.1% (secondary prevention ICDs) [2]. It is associated with high morbidity and mortality, with studies reporting a 5-to 18-fold increase in mortality in the first 3 months after diagnosis [1]. Monomorphic VT is by far the most common dysrhythmia encountered in electrical storm.