0
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Expedited transfer to a cardiac arrest centre for non-ST-elevation out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (ARREST): a UK prospective, multicentre, parallel, randomised clinical trial

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Summary

          Background

          The International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation has called for a randomised trial of delivery to a cardiac arrest centre. We aimed to assess whether expedited delivery to a cardiac arrest centre compared with current standard of care following resuscitated cardiac arrest reduces deaths.

          Methods

          ARREST is a prospective, parallel, multicentre, open-label, randomised superiority trial. Patients (aged ≥18 years) with return of spontaneous circulation following out-of-hospital cardiac arrest without ST elevation were randomly assigned (1:1) at the scene of their cardiac arrest by London Ambulance Service staff using a secure online randomisation system to expedited delivery to the cardiac catheter laboratory at one of seven cardiac arrest centres or standard of care with delivery to the geographically closest emergency department at one of 32 hospitals in London, UK. Masking of the ambulance staff who delivered the interventions and those reporting treatment outcomes in hospital was not possible. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality at 30 days, analysed in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population excluding those with unknown mortality status. Safety outcomes were analysed in the ITT population. The trial was prospectively registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials Registry, 96585404.

          Findings

          Between Jan 15, 2018, and Dec 1, 2022, 862 patients were enrolled, of whom 431 (50%) were randomly assigned to a cardiac arrest centre and 431 (50%) to standard care. 20 participants withdrew from the cardiac arrest centre group and 19 from the standard care group, due to lack of consent or unknown mortality status, leaving 411 participants in the cardiac arrest centre group and 412 in the standard care group for the primary analysis. Of 822 participants for whom data were available, 560 (68%) were male and 262 (32%) were female. The primary endpoint of 30-day mortality occurred in 258 (63%) of 411 participants in the cardiac arrest centre group and in 258 (63%) of 412 in the standard care group (unadjusted risk ratio for survival 1·00, 95% CI 0·90–1·11; p=0·96). Eight (2%) of 414 patients in the cardiac arrest centre group and three (1%) of 413 in the standard care group had serious adverse events, none of which were deemed related to the trial intervention.

          Interpretation

          In adult patients without ST elevation, transfer to a cardiac arrest centre following resuscitated cardiac arrest in the community did not reduce deaths.

          Funding

          British Heart Foundation.

          Related collections

          Most cited references22

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Regional variation in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest incidence and outcome.

          The health and policy implications of regional variation in incidence and outcome of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest remain to be determined. To evaluate whether cardiac arrest incidence and outcome differ across geographic regions. Prospective observational study (the Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium) of all out-of-hospital cardiac arrests in 10 North American sites (8 US and 2 Canadian) from May 1, 2006, to April 30, 2007, followed up to hospital discharge, and including data available as of June 28, 2008. Cases (aged 0-108 years) were assessed by organized emergency medical services (EMS) personnel, did not have traumatic injury, and received attempts at external defibrillation or chest compressions or resuscitation was not attempted. Census data were used to determine rates adjusted for age and sex. Incidence rate, mortality rate, case-fatality rate, and survival to discharge for patients assessed or treated by EMS personnel or with an initial rhythm of ventricular fibrillation. Among the 10 sites, the total catchment population was 21.4 million, and there were 20,520 cardiac arrests. A total of 11,898 (58.0%) had resuscitation attempted; 2729 (22.9% of treated) had initial rhythm of ventricular fibrillation or ventricular tachycardia or rhythms that were shockable by an automated external defibrillator; and 954 (4.6% of total) were discharged alive. The median incidence of EMS-treated cardiac arrest across sites was 52.1 (interquartile range [IQR], 48.0-70.1) per 100,000 population; survival ranged from 3.0% to 16.3%, with a median of 8.4% (IQR, 5.4%-10.4%). Median ventricular fibrillation incidence was 12.6 (IQR, 10.6-5.2) per 100,000 population; survival ranged from 7.7% to 39.9%, with a median of 22.0% (IQR, 15.0%-24.4%), with significant differences across sites for incidence and survival (P<.001). In this study involving 10 geographic regions in North America, there were significant and important regional differences in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest incidence and outcome.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Intraaortic balloon support for myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock.

            In current international guidelines, intraaortic balloon counterpulsation is considered to be a class I treatment for cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction. However, evidence is based mainly on registry data, and there is a paucity of randomized clinical trials. In this randomized, prospective, open-label, multicenter trial, we randomly assigned 600 patients with cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction to intraaortic balloon counterpulsation (IABP group, 301 patients) or no intraaortic balloon counterpulsation (control group, 299 patients). All patients were expected to undergo early revascularization (by means of percutaneous coronary intervention or bypass surgery) and to receive the best available medical therapy. The primary efficacy end point was 30-day all-cause mortality. Safety assessments included major bleeding, peripheral ischemic complications, sepsis, and stroke. A total of 300 patients in the IABP group and 298 in the control group were included in the analysis of the primary end point. At 30 days, 119 patients in the IABP group (39.7%) and 123 patients in the control group (41.3%) had died (relative risk with IABP, 0.96; 95% confidence interval, 0.79 to 1.17; P=0.69). There were no significant differences in secondary end points or in process-of-care measures, including the time to hemodynamic stabilization, the length of stay in the intensive care unit, serum lactate levels, the dose and duration of catecholamine therapy, and renal function. The IABP group and the control group did not differ significantly with respect to the rates of major bleeding (3.3% and 4.4%, respectively; P=0.51), peripheral ischemic complications (4.3% and 3.4%, P=0.53), sepsis (15.7% and 20.5%, P=0.15), and stroke (0.7% and 1.7%, P=0.28). The use of intraaortic balloon counterpulsation did not significantly reduce 30-day mortality in patients with cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction for whom an early revascularization strategy was planned. (Funded by the German Research Foundation and others; IABP-SHOCK II ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00491036.).
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Hypothermia versus Normothermia after Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest

              Targeted temperature management is recommended for patients after cardiac arrest, but the supporting evidence is of low certainty.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Lancet
                Lancet
                Lancet (London, England)
                Elsevier
                0140-6736
                1474-547X
                14 October 2023
                14 October 2023
                : 402
                : 10410
                : 1329-1337
                Affiliations
                [a ]Cardiovascular Department, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
                [b ]Cardiovascular Department, Faculty of Life Sciences and Medicine, King's College London, London, UK
                [c ]Clinical Trials Unit, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK
                [d ]London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine Clinical Trials Unit, London, UK
                [e ]Clinical Audit and Research Unit, London Ambulance Service, London, UK
                [f ]Faculty of Health, Social Care and Education, Kingston University and St George's, University of London, London, UK
                [g ]Institute for Lifecourse Development, University of Greenwich, London, UK
                [h ]Department of Cardiology, Brompton and Harefield NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
                [i ]Department of Cardiology, King's College Hospital, London, UK
                [j ]Department of Cardiology, St Georges Hospital, London, UK
                [k ]Department of Cardiology, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK
                [l ]Department of Cardiology, Royal Free Hospital Foundation Trust, London, UK
                [m ]Department of Cardiology, Barts Heart Centre, London, UK
                [n ]Department of Anaesthesia, Royal United Hospital, Bath, UK
                Author notes
                [* ]Correspondence to: Dr Tiffany Patterson, Cardiovascular Department, Guy's and St Thomas NHS Foundation Trust, London SE1 7EH, UK tiffany.patterson@ 123456gstt.nhs.uk
                [†]

                Collaborators are listed in the appendix pp 3–7

                Article
                S0140-6736(23)01351-X
                10.1016/S0140-6736(23)01351-X
                10877072
                37647928
                25dc043f-6fbd-4004-a571-b940fb08596e
                © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license

                This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

                History
                Categories
                Articles

                Medicine
                Medicine

                Comments

                Comment on this article