Airway Management Correlates with Heart Attack Survival
By HospiMedica International staff writers Posted on 18 Mar 2019 |
A new study shows that advanced airway management (AAM) techniques are associated with better survival among out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) patients with non-shockable heart rhythms.
Researchers at Osaka University (Japan), Jikei University School of Medicine (Tokyo, Japan), Otsuma Women’s University (Tokyo, Japan), and other institutions conducted a study involving 310,620 consecutive OHCA patients, who were divided into two sub-cohorts by first documented electrocardiograph (EEG): either shockable (ventricular fibrillation or pulseless ventricular tachycardia) or non-shockable (pulseless electrical activity or asystole) rhythms. The objective was to determine one-month survival rates, as associated with AAM.
In all, 41.2% of patients in the shockable cohort and 42% in the non-shockable cohort received AAM during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) following OHCA. The researchers found that in the shockable cohort, survival did not differ between patients with AAM (19.2%) and those with no AAM (18.6%). But in the non-shockable cohort, patients who received AAM (2.3%) had better survival than those who did not receive AAM (1.8%). The study was published on February 28, 2019, in BMJ.
“International guidelines do account for treatment based on ECG rhythms, yet we found that different airway management strategies based on these rhythms deserve greater attention,” said senior author Tetsuhisa Kitamura, MD, of Osaka University. “Shockable rhythm should receive immediate defibrillation and continuous chest-compression, rather than ventilatory support. However, non-shockable rhythm could benefit from oxygen delivery with AAM.”
Basic life support, which consists of early CPR and defibrillation with automated external defibrillators, improves outcomes in patients with OHCA. Providing oxygen to the lungs via bag-valve-mask ventilation and AMM, which secures better protection for the airway than bag-valve-mask ventilation alone, are also important resuscitation skills. A shockable ECG rhythm indicates receptivity to defibrillation, while a non-shockable rhythm is treated with only CPR, often accompanied by intravenous adrenaline.
Related Links:
Osaka University
Jikei University School of Medicine
Otsuma Women’s University
Researchers at Osaka University (Japan), Jikei University School of Medicine (Tokyo, Japan), Otsuma Women’s University (Tokyo, Japan), and other institutions conducted a study involving 310,620 consecutive OHCA patients, who were divided into two sub-cohorts by first documented electrocardiograph (EEG): either shockable (ventricular fibrillation or pulseless ventricular tachycardia) or non-shockable (pulseless electrical activity or asystole) rhythms. The objective was to determine one-month survival rates, as associated with AAM.
In all, 41.2% of patients in the shockable cohort and 42% in the non-shockable cohort received AAM during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) following OHCA. The researchers found that in the shockable cohort, survival did not differ between patients with AAM (19.2%) and those with no AAM (18.6%). But in the non-shockable cohort, patients who received AAM (2.3%) had better survival than those who did not receive AAM (1.8%). The study was published on February 28, 2019, in BMJ.
“International guidelines do account for treatment based on ECG rhythms, yet we found that different airway management strategies based on these rhythms deserve greater attention,” said senior author Tetsuhisa Kitamura, MD, of Osaka University. “Shockable rhythm should receive immediate defibrillation and continuous chest-compression, rather than ventilatory support. However, non-shockable rhythm could benefit from oxygen delivery with AAM.”
Basic life support, which consists of early CPR and defibrillation with automated external defibrillators, improves outcomes in patients with OHCA. Providing oxygen to the lungs via bag-valve-mask ventilation and AMM, which secures better protection for the airway than bag-valve-mask ventilation alone, are also important resuscitation skills. A shockable ECG rhythm indicates receptivity to defibrillation, while a non-shockable rhythm is treated with only CPR, often accompanied by intravenous adrenaline.
Related Links:
Osaka University
Jikei University School of Medicine
Otsuma Women’s University
Latest Critical Care News
- AI to Improved Diagnosis of Atrial Fibrillation
- Stretchable Microneedles to Help In Accurate Tracking of Abnormalities and Identifying Rapid Treatment
- Machine Learning Tool Identifies Rare, Undiagnosed Immune Disorders from Patient EHRs
- On-Skin Wearable Bioelectronic Device Paves Way for Intelligent Implants
- First-Of-Its-Kind Dissolvable Stent to Improve Outcomes for Patients with Severe PAD
- AI Brain-Age Estimation Technology Uses EEG Scans to Screen for Degenerative Diseases
- Wheeze-Counting Wearable Device Monitors Patient's Breathing In Real Time
- Wearable Multiplex Biosensors Could Revolutionize COPD Management
- New Low-Energy Defibrillation Method Controls Cardiac Arrhythmias
- New Machine Learning Models Help Predict Heart Disease Risk in Women
- Deep-Learning Model Predicts Arrhythmia 30 Minutes before Onset
- Breakthrough Technology Combines Detection and Treatment of Nerve-Related Disorders in Single Procedure
- Plasma Irradiation Promotes Faster Bone Healing
- New Device Treats Acute Kidney Injury from Sepsis
- Study Confirms Safety of DCB-Only Strategy for Treating De Novo Left Main Coronary Artery Disease
- Revascularization Improves Quality of Life for Patients with Chronic Limb Threatening Ischemia