Improving outcomes from in-hospital cardiac arrest

Over 200 000 adults a year sustain a cardiac arrest while in hospital in the United States.1 Most trials have taken place outside hospital,2 yet the aetiology, patient characteristics, time to treatment, and outcomes are quite different to cardiac arrests occurring in inpatients. Clinical guidelines for in-hospital resuscitation are therefore mainly drawn from the extrapolation of findings from out-of-hospital trials, observational studies, and consensus of expert opinion coordinated through the International Liaison Committee for Resuscitation.3 Given the cost, logistical, and ethical challenges of conducting randomised trials in cardiac arrest, the use of high quality observational data to provide insights into the effectiveness of treatments is attractive. The main limitation of observational studies is the risk that the outcome is affected by both the treatment allocation and other factors that influence the treatment allocation. Propensity scoring methods have been growing in popularity as a way of reducing confounding related to measured variables

The implementation of cardiac arrest treatment recommendations in English acute NHS trusts : a national survey

Purpose of the study: There are approximately 35 000 in-hospital cardiac arrests in the UK each year. Successful resuscitation requires integration of the medical science, training and education of clinicians and implementation of best practice in the clinical setting. In 2015, the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation (ILCOR) published its latest resuscitation treatment recommendations. It is currently unknown the extent to which these treatment recommendations have been successfully implemented in practice in English NHS acute hospital trusts. Methods: We conducted an electronic survey of English acute NHS trusts to assess the implementation of key ILCOR resuscitation treatment recommendations in relation to in-hospital cardiac arrest practice at English NHS acute hospital trusts. Results: Of 137 eligible trusts, 73 responded to the survey (response rate 53.3%). The survey identified significant variation in the implementation of ILCOR recommendations. In particular, the use of waveform capnography (n=33, 45.2%) and ultrasound (n=29, 39.7%) was often reported to be available only in specialist areas. Post-resuscitation debriefing occurs following every in-hospital cardiac arrest in few trusts (5.5%, n=4), despite a strong ILCOR recommendation. In contrast, participation in a range of quality improvement strategies such as the National Cardiac Arrest Audit (90.4%, n=66) and resuscitation equipment provision/audit (91.8%, n=67) were high. Financial restrictions were identified by 65.8% (n=48) as the main barrier to guideline implementation. Conclusion: Our survey found that ILCOR treatment recommendations had not been fully implemented in most English NHS acute hospital trusts. Further work is required to better understand barriers to implementation

Mechanical versus manual chest compressions in the treatment of in-hospital cardiac arrest patients in a non-shockable rhythm : a randomised controlled feasibility trial (COMPRESS-RCT)

Background Mechanical chest compression devices consistently deliver high-quality chest compressions. Small very low-quality studies suggest mechanical devices may be effective as an alternative to manual chest compressions in the treatment of adult in-hospital cardiac arrest patients. The aim of this feasibility trial is to assess the feasibility of conducting an effectiveness trial in this patient population. Methods COMPRESS-RCT is a multi-centre parallel group feasibility randomised controlled trial, designed to assess the feasibility of undertaking an effectiveness to compare the effect of mechanical chest compressions with manual chest compressions on 30-day survival following in-hospital cardiac arrest. Over approximately two years, 330 adult patients who sustain an in-hospital cardiac arrest and are in a non-shockable rhythm will be randomised in a 3:1 ratio to receive ongoing treatment with a mechanical chest compression device (LUCAS 2/3, Jolife AB/Stryker, Lund, Sweden) or continued manual chest compressions. It is intended that recruitment will occur on a 24/7 basis by the clinical cardiac arrest team. The primary study outcome is the proportion of eligible participants randomised in the study during site operational recruitment hours. Participants will be enrolled using a model of deferred consent, with consent for follow-up sought from patients or their consultee in those that survive the cardiac arrest event. The trial will have an embedded qualitative study, in which we will conduct semi-structured interviews with hospital staff to explore facilitators and barriers to study recruitment. Discussion The findings of COMPRESS-RCT will provide important information about the deliverability of an effectiveness trial to evaluate the effect on 30-day mortality of routine use of mechanical chest compression devices in adult in-hospital cardiac arrest patients

Patient, health service factors and variation in mortality following resuscitated out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in acute coronary syndrome : analysis of the Myocardial Ischaemia National Audit Project

Aims To determine patient and health service factors associated with variation in hospital mortality among resuscitated cases of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Methods In this cohort study, we used the Myocardial Ischaemia National Audit Project database to study outcomes in patients hospitalised with resuscitated OHCA due to ACS between 2003 and 2015 in the United Kingdom. We analysed variation in inter-hospital mortality and used hierarchical multivariable regression models to examine the association between patient and health service factors with hospital mortality. Results We included 17604 patients across 239 hospitals. Overall hospital mortality was 28.7%. In 94 hospitals that contributed at least 60 cases, mortality by hospital ranged from 10.7% to 66.3% (median 28.6%, IQR 23.2% to 39.1%)). Patient and health service factors explained 36.1% of this variation. After adjustment for covariates, factors associated with higher hospital mortality included increasing serum glucose, ST-Elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) diagnosis, and initial admission to a primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI) capable hospital. Hospital OHCA volume was not associated with mortality. The key modifiable factor associated with lower mortality was early reperfusion therapy in STEMI patients. Conclusion There was wide variation in inter-hospital mortality following resuscitated OHCA due to ACS that was only partially explained by patient and health service factors. Hospital OHCA volume and pPCI capability were not associated with lower mortality. Early reperfusion therapy was associated with lower mortality in STEMI patients

Variation in outcome of hospitalised patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest from acute coronary syndrome : a cohort study

Background Each year, approximately 30,000 people have an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) that is treated by UK ambulance services. Across all cases of OHCA, survival to hospital discharge is less than 10%. Acute coronary syndrome (ACS) is a common cause of OHCA. Objectives To explore factors that influence survival in patients who initially survive an OHCA attributable to ACS. Data source Data collected by the Myocardial Ischaemia National Audit Project (MINAP) between 2003 and 2015. Participants Adult patients who had a first OHCA attributable to ACS and who were successfully resuscitated and admitted to hospital. Main outcome measures Hospital mortality, neurological outcome at hospital discharge, and time to all-cause mortality. Methods We undertook a cohort study using data from the MINAP registry. MINAP is a national audit that collects data on patients admitted to English, Welsh and Northern Irish hospitals with myocardial ischaemia. From the data set, we identified patients who had an OHCA. We used imputation to address data missingness across the data set. We analysed data using multilevel logistic regression to identify modifiable and non-modifiable factors that affect outcome. Results Between 2003 and 2015, 1,127,140 patient cases were included in the MINAP data set. Of these, 17,604 OHCA cases met the study inclusion criteria. Overall hospital survival was 71.3%. Across hospitals with at least 60 cases, hospital survival ranged from 34% to 89% (median 71.4%, interquartile range 60.7–76.9%). Modelling, which adjusted for patient and treatment characteristics, could account for only 36.1% of this variability. For the primary outcome, the key modifiable factors associated with reduced mortality were reperfusion treatment [primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI) or thrombolysis] and admission under a cardiologist. Admission to a high-volume cardiac arrest hospital did not influence survival. Sensitivity analyses showed that reperfusion was associated with reduced mortality among patients with a ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), but there was no evidence of a reduction in mortality in patients who did not present with a STEMI. Limitations This was an observational study, such that unmeasured confounders may have influenced study findings. Differences in case identification processes at hospitals may contribute to an ascertainment bias. Conclusions In OHCA patients who have had a cardiac arrest attributable to ACS, there is evidence of variability in survival between hospitals, which cannot be fully explained by variables captured in the MINAP data set. Our findings provide some support for the current practice of transferring resuscitated patients with a STEMI to a hospital that can deliver pPCI. In contrast, it may be reasonable to transfer patients without a STEMI to the nearest appropriate hospital. Future work There is a need for clinical trials to examine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of invasive reperfusion strategies in resuscitated OHCA patients of cardiac cause who have not had a STEMI. Funding The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme

Debriefing for cardiac arrest

Early data from North America supports the use of educational cardiac arrest debriefing as a strategy to improve the quality of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) in the hospital setting. As some debriefing approaches are challenging to deliver in the NHS setting, there was a need to develop debriefing approaches that are both effective and suited to NHS working practices. This thesis is modelled on the Medical Research Council framework for the development and evaluation of complex interventions. Undertaken between October 2011 and January 2015, it describes the development and feasibility assessment of three cardiac arrest debriefing approaches, which were specifically designed to be deliverable in NHS hospitals. Development work comprised three work packages (systematic review, process evaluation, qualitative study). These studies provided evidence to support the use of cardiac arrest debriefing, but showed that weekly group debriefing is undeliverable in many NHS hospitals. Through qualitative work, I identified six distinct mechanisms by which debriefing may affect clinical practice. Synthesis of these data led to the development of three cardiac arrest debriefing approaches (monthly group debriefing, individual oral debriefing, written feedback). We tested the feasibility of delivering these interventions by implementing them in three NHS hospitals (one intervention per hospital). In a before/after study, it was demonstrated that, despite practical challenges, interventions were deliverable in NHS hospitals. However, they were found to have no effect on either CPR quality or patient outcome. This finding was attributed to high performance in study hospitals at baseline. This thesis demonstrates that the developed cardiac arrest debriefing interventions are deliverable in NHS hospitals. It has also generated important new theory about the mechanisms by which debriefing may affect clinical practice. This thesis lays the foundation for future work to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of these cardiac arrest debriefing interventions

Protocolised non-invasive compared with invasive weaning from mechanical ventilation for adults in intensive care : the Breathe RCT

Background: Invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) is a life-saving intervention. Following resolution of the condition that necessitated IMV, a spontaneous breathing trial (SBT) is used to determine patient readiness for IMV discontinuation. In patients who fail one or more SBTs, there is uncertainty as to the optimum management strategy. Objective: To evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of using non-invasive ventilation (NIV) as an intermediate step in the protocolised weaning of patients from IMV. Design: Pragmatic, open-label, parallel-group randomised controlled trial, with cost-effectiveness analysis. Setting: A total of 51 critical care units across the UK. Participants: Adult intensive care patients who had received IMV for at least 48 hours, who were categorised as ready to wean from ventilation, and who failed a SBT. Interventions: Control group (invasive weaning): patients continued to receive IMV with daily SBTs. A weaning protocol was used to wean pressure support based on the patient’s condition. Intervention group (non-invasive weaning): patients were extubated to NIV. A weaning protocol was used to wean inspiratory positive airway pressure, based on the patient’s condition. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome measure was time to liberation from ventilation. Secondary outcome measures included mortality, duration of IMV, proportion of patients receiving antibiotics for a presumed respiratory infection and health-related quality of life. Results: A total of 364 patients (invasive weaning, n = 182; non-invasive weaning, n = 182) were randomised. Groups were well matched at baseline. There was no difference between the invasive weaning and non-invasive weaning groups in median time to liberation from ventilation {invasive weaning 108 hours [interquartile range (IQR) 57–351 hours] vs. non-invasive weaning 104.3 hours [IQR 34.5–297 hours]; hazard ratio 1.1, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.89 to 1.39; p = 0.352}. There was also no difference in mortality between groups at any time point. Patients in the non-invasive weaning group had fewer IMV days [invasive weaning 4 days (IQR 2–11 days) vs. non-invasive weaning 1 day (IQR 0–7 days); adjusted mean difference –3.1 days, 95% CI –5.75 to –0.51 days]. In addition, fewer non-invasive weaning patients required antibiotics for a respiratory infection [odds ratio (OR) 0.60, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.00; p = 0.048]. A higher proportion of non-invasive weaning patients required reintubation than those in the invasive weaning group (OR 2.00, 95% CI 1.27 to 3.24). The within-trial economic evaluation showed that NIV was associated with a lower net cost and a higher net effect, and was dominant in health economic terms. The probability that NIV was cost-effective was estimated at 0.58 at a cost-effectiveness threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year. Conclusions: A protocolised non-invasive weaning strategy did not reduce time to liberation from ventilation. However, patients who underwent non-invasive weaning had fewer days requiring IMV and required fewer antibiotics for respiratory infections. Future work: In patients who fail a SBT, which factors predict an adverse outcome (reintubation, tracheostomy, death) if extubated and weaned using NIV? Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN15635197. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 23, No. 48. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information

‘There was a pivotal moment’. The dynamics, transitions, adaptations and trajectories of nursing at the front-line in the UK during the COVID-19 pandemic

Using qualitative interview data (n=142 interviews) generated with 50 nurses, over the course of the COVID-19 pandemic, this paper traces the trajectories of nurses in the UK and attempts to unpick the interplay between structure and agency in their narratives. Interviews were inductively analysed for themes and an additional narrative analysis was undertaken to preserve the form of each participant’s narrative. We argue that nurses’ pandemic trajectories occurred within the ‘psychological vulnerability-stigma nexus’ which operates within health and social care providers in the UK and whilst constraining nurses’ agency at times it could also provide an impetus to act agentically. We found that the nurses’ COVID-19 trajectories were characterised by: getting by, getting out (job-hopping) getting needs met and getting organised. We call for more considered systemic support to be generated and consistently provided to nurses to ensure retention of nurses and the security of society to avoid exacerbating existing workforce shortages