Conor P Crowley1, Justin D Salciccioli2, Edy Y Kim3. 1. Critical Care Department, Mount Auburn Hospital, 330 Mount Auburn St., Cambridge MA 02138, USA. Electronic address: crowconor@gmail.com. 2. Critical Care Department, Mount Auburn Hospital, 330 Mount Auburn St., Cambridge MA 02138, USA. 3. Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA 02115, USA; Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02115, USA.
Abstract
AIM OF STUDY: In hospital cardiac arrests occur at a rate of 1-5 per 1000 admissions and are associated with significant morbidity and mortality. We aimed to investigate the association between deviations from ACLS protocol and patient outcomes. METHODS: This retrospective review was conducted at a single academic medical center. Data was collected on patients who suffered cardiac arrest from December 2015-November 2019. Our primary endpoint was return of spontaneous circulation. Secondary endpoints included survival to discharge and discharge with favorable neurological outcomes. RESULTS: 108 patients were included, 74 obtained return of spontaneous circulation, and 23 survived to discharge. The median number of deviations from the ACLS protocol per event in ROSC group was 1 (IQR 0-3) compared to 6.5 (IQR 4-12) in non-ROSC group (p < .0001). The probability of obtaining ROSC was 96% with 0-2 deviations per event, 59% with 2-5 deviations per event, and 11% with greater than 6 deviations per event (p < .0001). The median deviation per event in patients who survived to discharge was 0 (IQR 0-1) vs. 3 (IQR 1-6, p < .0001) in those who did not. Lastly, survival to discharge with a favorable neurological outcome may be associated we less deviations per event (p < .006). CONCLUSION: Our findings highlight the importance of adherence to the ACLS protocol. We found that deviations from the algorithm are associated with decreased rates of ROSC and survival to discharge. Additionally, higher rates of protocol deviations may be associated with higher rates of neurological impairments after cardiac arrest.
AIM OF STUDY: In hospital cardiac arrests occur at a rate of 1-5 per 1000 admissions and are associated with significant morbidity and mortality. We aimed to investigate the association between deviations from ACLS protocol and patient outcomes. METHODS: This retrospective review was conducted at a single academic medical center. Data was collected on patients who suffered cardiac arrest from December 2015-November 2019. Our primary endpoint was return of spontaneous circulation. Secondary endpoints included survival to discharge and discharge with favorable neurological outcomes. RESULTS: 108 patients were included, 74 obtained return of spontaneous circulation, and 23 survived to discharge. The median number of deviations from the ACLS protocol per event in ROSC group was 1 (IQR 0-3) compared to 6.5 (IQR 4-12) in non-ROSC group (p < .0001). The probability of obtaining ROSC was 96% with 0-2 deviations per event, 59% with 2-5 deviations per event, and 11% with greater than 6 deviations per event (p < .0001). The median deviation per event in patients who survived to discharge was 0 (IQR 0-1) vs. 3 (IQR 1-6, p < .0001) in those who did not. Lastly, survival to discharge with a favorable neurological outcome may be associated we less deviations per event (p < .006). CONCLUSION: Our findings highlight the importance of adherence to the ACLS protocol. We found that deviations from the algorithm are associated with decreased rates of ROSC and survival to discharge. Additionally, higher rates of protocol deviations may be associated with higher rates of neurological impairments after cardiac arrest.
Authors: Mark S Link; Lauren C Berkow; Peter J Kudenchuk; Henry R Halperin; Erik P Hess; Vivek K Moitra; Robert W Neumar; Brian J O'Neil; James H Paxton; Scott M Silvers; Roger D White; Demetris Yannopoulos; Michael W Donnino Journal: Circulation Date: 2015-11-03 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Joseph P Ornato; Mary Ann Peberdy; Renee D Reid; V Ramana Feeser; Harinder S Dhindsa Journal: Resuscitation Date: 2011-09-29 Impact factor: 5.262
Authors: Saket Girotra; Brahmajee K Nallamothu; John A Spertus; Yan Li; Harlan M Krumholz; Paul S Chan Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2012-11-15 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Jerry P Nolan; Jasmeet Soar; Gary B Smith; Carl Gwinnutt; Francesca Parrott; Sarah Power; David A Harrison; Edel Nixon; Kathryn Rowan Journal: Resuscitation Date: 2014-04-15 Impact factor: 5.262
Authors: Matthew D McEvoy; Larry C Field; Haley E Moore; Jeremy C Smalley; Paul J Nietert; Sheila H Scarbrough Journal: Resuscitation Date: 2013-10-05 Impact factor: 5.262
Authors: Raina M Merchant; Robert A Berg; Lin Yang; Lance B Becker; Peter W Groeneveld; Paul S Chan Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2014-01-31 Impact factor: 5.501
Authors: Fábio Almeida; Luiz Gonzaga de Moura Junior; Eduardo Lemos de Souza Bastos; João Caetano Dallegrave Marchesini; Fábio Viegas; Antonio Carlos Valezi; Edgar Marçal de Barros Filho Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2022-05-31 Impact factor: 3.479
Authors: Timur Sellmann; Andrea Oendorf; Dietmar Wetzchewald; Heidrun Schwager; Serge Christian Thal; Stephan Marsch Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-06-02 Impact factor: 4.964
Authors: Sami Rifai; Timur Sellmann; Dietmar Wetzchewald; Heidrun Schwager; Franziska Tschan; Sebastian G Russo; Stephan Marsch Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-10-29 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Timur Sellmann; Maria Nur; Dietmar Wetzchewald; Heidrun Schwager; Corvin Cleff; Serge C Thal; Stephan Marsch Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-10-05 Impact factor: 4.964