New ACLS/Post Arrest Guidelines: For Everyone? Laurie Morrison, Li Ka Shing, Knowledge Institute, St Michael s Hospital, University of Toronto

Transcription

1 New ACLS/Post Arrest Guidelines: For Everyone? Laurie Morrison, Li Ka Shing, Knowledge Institute, St Michael s Hospital, University of Toronto

2 COI Declaration Industry and ROC ALS Taskforce ILCOR Author AHA Guidelines 2005, 2010 and 2015

3

4 Scope of Work OHCA and IHCA

5 2005 Guidelines Critical CPR Concepts CPR saves lives Everyone should do it Focus on continuous high quality Minimize interruptions Careful with ventilation

6 New Defibb Toys

7 2010 Guidelines 2010 American Heart Association. All rights reserved.

8 CPR Process Defibrillator dashboard with CPR process measures Perfusion pressure indicator ALS Responder Medicine UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO

9 Use of ET CO 2 During CPR Confirming Intubation Physiological Monitoring Quality of CPR 2010 American Heart Association. All rights reserved.

10 Depth (inches*100) Rapid increase in ETCO2 predicts ROSC Rapid decline in ETCO2 during ROSC predicts re-arrest Feedback Tool Depth 40 ETCO Time (s) ETCO2 (mmhg) Case

11 PSP of 20 seconds or longer associated with mortality OR of 0.47 ( )

12 Anatomy of the Pre-Shock Pause Post Shock Pause Optimize Hands On time No Analysis One shock Only No Pulse Check Manual vs Auto Capacitor auto charges

13 analysis AED pre-shock pause duration automatic mode Device Minimum Interruption, secs Maximum Interruption, secs (Mean + SD) (Mean + SD) A B C D E F G Medicine UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO

14 Shortest PSP in Toronto 08:54:06 08:54:08 analysis

15 CPR Process Personal Feedback

16 CPR Process Service Feedback Sept 2015 AHA Guidelines Mins of CPR that meet Guidelines (%) Mean SD 90 th % tile Mins of CPR 769 Comp Rate % Comp Fraction % Comp Depth %

17 Summary of Changes Improve CPR quality Monitor CPR quality Feedback Audio Visual Feedback Audit and Feedback Reduce Peri-Shock Pause

18 Survival Rates Out-of-Hospital VF Cardiac Arrest in Epistry at Rescu (Urban and rural regions of Southern Ontario) Year Treated (N=) Alive to discharge (N=) Alive to discharge (%) 95% Confidence Limit (%) Medicine UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO

19 SURVIVAL 30% 20% VT VF Bystander VT VF 5% EMS treated all PEA Asystole Medicine UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO

20 2010 Guidelines 2015 Guidelines Update Medicine UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO

21 274 completed in potential 165 completed in 2015 Medicine UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO

22 compressions/min Minimize interruptions Compression fraction >0.6 Preferably >0.8 Rhythm check 5 seconds Pulse check organized rhythm Deep to 5-6 cm Audio Visual Feedback

23 Just use epinephrine Vasopressin offers no advantage ETCO2 waveform capnography is the gold standard US in the hands of experts may be... Epi within 1-3 mins in non shockable rhythms ROSC adv with IHCA Titrate to O2 sat with sustained ROSC May be considered...lots of caveats

24 % of pre epi level Effect of 1 mg Epi Bolus During CPR Aortic Pressures 100% Carotid Blood Flow Epi Courtesy of Paul Dorian s Lab 2014 Dorian et al unpublished

25

26 Cumulative Proportion Survival Placebo versus EPI 0.4 ED % 25% epinephrine % 13% placebo 4% 2% Event ROSC ED/admission 24hrs 72hrs Discharge

27 Study Subjects Date N One-Month Survival CPC 1-2 Japan Data Hagihara 2012 Epi vs. None Nakahara 2012 Early Epi? Nakahara 2013 EMS Epi? Hayashi 2012 EMS Epi? Goto 2013 Witnessed OHCA OHCA with Advanced EMS 49,165 VF: 28.2% vs. 17.7% NonVF: 4.7% vs. 2.8% Propensity Matched: 22,096 No Post Arrest Care Protocol OHCA BIG 417,188 Observational VF: 15.4% vs. 21.3% StudiesVF: 6.1% vs. 13.5% 2008 NonVF: 3.8% vs. 3.4% NonVF: 0.6% vs. 1.3% >775,000 Propensity patients Matched: 26,802 Propensity Matched: 5.1% vs. 7.0% Propensity Matched: 1.3% vs. 3.1% Propensity matched Duration of OHCA Witnessed ,079 OHCA prior 2010 to ROSC Indication bias confounding Ø TTM OHCA of Ø Access to PCI cardiac 2010 Epi Ø x Rhythm? Vasopressor cause Support Ø Neuroprognostication VF: 16.5% vs. 28.8% NonVF: 3.9% vs. 4.2% Propensity Matched: VF: 17.0% vs. 13.4% NonVF: 4.0% vs. 2.4% 3, % vs. 12.0% VF: 29.8% vs. 36.2% NonVF: 9.3% vs. 8.1% 209,577 VF: 15.4% vs. 27.0% NonVF: 3.0% vs. 18.7% VF: 13.9% vs. 9.4% NonVF: 0.9% vs. 0.7% VF: 6.9% vs. 19.8% NonVF: 0.6% vs. 1.5% VF 6.6% vs 6.6% NonVF <1% vs <1% Propensity Matched: VF: 6.6% vs. 6.6% NonVF: 0.7% vs. 0.4% 4.1% vs. 6.1% VF: 14.1% vs. 25.2% NonVF: 1.5% vs. 3.0% VF: 7.0% vs. 18.6% NonVF: 0.59 vs. 0.62%

28 One size DOES NOT fit all in Resuscitation Focus on the Rescuer Making the RIGHT thing the EASIEST thing to do Focus on the Patient

29 1989 Ann EM Gonzalez

30 Sutton Am J Respir Crit Care Med Oct 16 Goal Directive Care Guideline Care 1 st EPI 1 st SHOCK

31 Further studies on the role of epinephrine in cardiac arrest are required to determine optimal dose and timing for drug administration

32

33 Quality of CPR Monitoring 2014 OHCA

34 Fatal Flaws To slow to recognize CA To slow to start compressions To slow to apply defib To slow to shock Training - infrequent, remote from ward Feedback none Point of Care, infrequent audit and feedback Mock codes NASCAR analogy Medicine UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO

35 One size DOES NOT fit all in Post Resuscitation Optimize parameters TTM is ACTIVE Yes for STEMI Yes for comatose Consider for non STEMI WLST < 72 hours is fatal Donation after circulatory death

36 Pittsburgh Cardiac Arrest Categories *Rittenberger 2011; Resuscitation 82:

37 Rittenberger 2011, Resuscitation Initial Category and Outcome 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Survival 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Good Functional Recovery 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Multiple Organ Failure

38 Customize care based on expectations Post-Arrest STEMI Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 Straight to Cath Lab Category 4 CT head Discuss with Family Limitation of Care

39 STEMI + who else goes to cath? STEMI

40 STEMI + who else goes to cath? STEMI Primary VF Suggestive History Cardiogenic Shock

41 STEMI + who else goes to cath? STEMI Primary VF Suggestive History Cardiogenic Shock Echo with Focal Wall Motion Abnormalities Rising Troponin

42 33ºC or 36ºC? In undifferentiated patients, neither has been shown to be superior In patients with <50% expected survival, consider using the more aggressive regimen

43 GWR: Gray Matter to White Matter Ratio

44 Progression of Cerebral Edema after Rewarming

45 33ºC or 36ºC? In undifferentiated patients, neither has been shown to be superior In patients with <50% expected survival, consider using more aggressive regimen Use temperature to affect specific pathophysiology: cerebral edema, brain tissue hypoxia, seizures Consider 33 > 36 CT with intermediate edema Consider 33 > 36

46 33ºC or 36ºC? In undifferentiated patients, neither has been shown to be superior In patients with <50% expected survival, consider using more aggressive regimen Use temperature to affect specific pathophysiology: cerebral edema, brain tissue hypoxia, seizures Consider 33 > 36 CT with intermediate edema Consider 33 > 36 Malignant EEG Consider 33 > 36

47 Impact of Guidelines Resus 2014

48 Knowledge Translation or Implementation Science Right provider Right patient Right treatment Right time interval Right outcome

49 Implement, Implement, Implement Audit and Feedback= Survival

50 Medicine UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO