Implications of an Individualized Resuscitation Strategy Using Continuous Rhythm and Physiologic Status Assessment During Ongoing CPR.

IF 6.5 1区 医学 Q1 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE
Heemun Kwok, Jason Coult, Jennifer Blackwood, Julia A King, Peter Kudenchuk, Thomas Rea
{"title":"Implications of an Individualized Resuscitation Strategy Using Continuous Rhythm and Physiologic Status Assessment During Ongoing CPR.","authors":"Heemun Kwok, Jason Coult, Jennifer Blackwood, Julia A King, Peter Kudenchuk, Thomas Rea","doi":"10.1016/j.resuscitation.2025.110520","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Prior studies have proposed defibrillator biosignal algorithms which characterize cardiac arrest rhythm and physiologic status. We evaluated whether a novel, individualized resuscitation strategy that integrates multiple ECG and impedance-based algorithms could reduce CPR interruptions and better align rescuer actions with patient-specific physiology.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In a retrospective cohort of ventricular fibrillation out-of-hospital cardiac arrests, observed rescuer actions (rhythm analysis, shock delivery, pulse checks, and drug therapy) were compared to hypothetical actions recommended by the proposed individualized strategy. Misdirected drug therapy was defined as either 1) epinephrine when the algorithm predicted a spontaneous pulse or 2) antiarrhythmic during predicted bradyasystole. Clinically avoidable actions included delivering a shock without restoring return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) and interrupting CPR for pulse assessment when no spontaneous pulse was present.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 390 cases, 46% survived to hospital discharge. This individualized treatment strategy achieved comparable shock decision accuracy (95% sensitivity, 98% specificity) as observed care while decreasing median CPR interruption for shock from 12 to 6 seconds. The individualized strategy also identified 17% of 597 epinephrine and 9% of 248 antiarrhythmic administrations as misdirected. Following 1334 ventricular fibrillation shocks, the frequency of post-shock ROSC was 4% when its predicted probability was low versus 22% when not. During 1088 pulse checks, pulse was present in 5% when predicted probability of spontaneous pulse was low versus 35% when not.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>An individualized resuscitation strategy could improve CPR interruption, medication administration, shock delivery, and pulse assessment. Prospective evaluation is required to assess clinical benefit.</p>","PeriodicalId":21052,"journal":{"name":"Resuscitation","volume":" ","pages":"110520"},"PeriodicalIF":6.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Resuscitation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resuscitation.2025.110520","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Prior studies have proposed defibrillator biosignal algorithms which characterize cardiac arrest rhythm and physiologic status. We evaluated whether a novel, individualized resuscitation strategy that integrates multiple ECG and impedance-based algorithms could reduce CPR interruptions and better align rescuer actions with patient-specific physiology.

Methods: In a retrospective cohort of ventricular fibrillation out-of-hospital cardiac arrests, observed rescuer actions (rhythm analysis, shock delivery, pulse checks, and drug therapy) were compared to hypothetical actions recommended by the proposed individualized strategy. Misdirected drug therapy was defined as either 1) epinephrine when the algorithm predicted a spontaneous pulse or 2) antiarrhythmic during predicted bradyasystole. Clinically avoidable actions included delivering a shock without restoring return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) and interrupting CPR for pulse assessment when no spontaneous pulse was present.

Results: Of 390 cases, 46% survived to hospital discharge. This individualized treatment strategy achieved comparable shock decision accuracy (95% sensitivity, 98% specificity) as observed care while decreasing median CPR interruption for shock from 12 to 6 seconds. The individualized strategy also identified 17% of 597 epinephrine and 9% of 248 antiarrhythmic administrations as misdirected. Following 1334 ventricular fibrillation shocks, the frequency of post-shock ROSC was 4% when its predicted probability was low versus 22% when not. During 1088 pulse checks, pulse was present in 5% when predicted probability of spontaneous pulse was low versus 35% when not.

Conclusions: An individualized resuscitation strategy could improve CPR interruption, medication administration, shock delivery, and pulse assessment. Prospective evaluation is required to assess clinical benefit.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Resuscitation
Resuscitation 医学-急救医学
CiteScore
12.00
自引率
18.50%
发文量
556
审稿时长
21 days
期刊介绍: Resuscitation is a monthly international and interdisciplinary medical journal. The papers published deal with the aetiology, pathophysiology and prevention of cardiac arrest, resuscitation training, clinical resuscitation, and experimental resuscitation research, although papers relating to animal studies will be published only if they are of exceptional interest and related directly to clinical cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Papers relating to trauma are published occasionally but the majority of these concern traumatic cardiac arrest.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信