Field termination of cardiac arrest

Arrested Pts

With the current level of training, education and equipment provided to ambos and the effectiveness of the new ILCOR CPR guidelines, the time is now long passed where resus measures in hospital are considered the definitive care in the arrested pt.

Surely the only reason to transport to hospital is for post arrest management.
This is particularly true given we have now been given much clearer guidelines as to our role, responsibilities, where our authority to make decisions begins and ends and what is reasonable to expect given the various arrest situations that can arise.

As far as I can see, there are only three things we need to do in an arrest (not including drug choices etc).

1. Make a clinical determination as to the pts viability for a resus attempt.
2. Achieve the goal you set yourself by making that determination - achieve output state.
3. Having done this, move the pt on to the hospital for post resus management using tools, equipment, expertise and drugs that we cannot provide nor utilise.

I posted some stuff along these lines in the RSI thread from a while back. All things being equal there are very few occasions where you do active resus in the truck. If you have to do CPR in the truck, either the pt has rearrested, has just arrested or is a paediatric arrest all of whom are transported except the obviously deceased.

A stable platform to work on, space to work in and enough hands so the arrest protocol can be worked through.

Its not the battlefield so we don't have to race away from the incoming mortar rounds with our arrested pt in tow all the while giving substandard care.

Do it at the scene, get it right, get them going and get them there.

MM
 
With new CPR and the stats showing good uninterupted CPR having better outcomes, here in BC even the BLS with out ALS will work them to D/C in some circumstances.

The loss of coronary perfusion with transport pretty much outweights the reason's for transport with the >15 sec interuption of compressions.

This also is safer for the crews, no more crumby extrications with dead people on clamshells.....
 
With new CPR and the stats showing good uninterupted CPR having better outcomes, here in BC even the BLS with out ALS will work them to D/C in some circumstances.

The loss of coronary perfusion with transport pretty much outweights the reason's for transport with the >15 sec interuption of compressions.

This also is safer for the crews, no more crumby extrications with dead people on clamshells.....


I think it is becoming clear that with a better understanding of the nuances of CPR ie how the ILCOR guidelines have shifted the emphasis to continuous uninterrupted and effective compressions we are looking at improved viability of those who are viable to begin with of reaching the next stage of successful resuscitation - maintaining perfusion and neurological state to an outcome of survival with minimal deficits and reduced long term complications.

Ambos are in the best position to know who is going to fit into this category of patients. We also know that a certain percentage of our arrested patients are the "end of life" category.

It is a very exciting time as the role of early intervention to reach stage one of resus is an achievable goal.

More importantly this provides a valuable opportunity for the ALS component of the resus patient care to come into play. With years of criticisms of ALS care - you know the stuff, no supporting studies or evidence to justify our role in various clinical circumstances, it is fantastic that we can add "post resus" perfusion support to our list of interventions where we were can and do make a difference.

It's also a "barrow" we ALS type must push. This might mean we start pressing for some alternative therapies and drugs - vasopressors, dopamine, proper IMED type pumps, proper ventilators etc.

Who knows, one of these days we may actually bring "intensive" care to the streets. Great stuff.

MM
 
soooo

With new CPR and the stats showing good uninterupted CPR having better outcomes, here in BC even the BLS with out ALS will work them to D/C in some circumstances.

The loss of coronary perfusion with transport pretty much outweights the reason's for transport with the >15 sec interuption of compressions.

This also is safer for the crews, no more crumby extrications with dead people on clamshells.....

Does your state allow you to work them for however long and then leave them no matter where they are? ]
You are right, technology and training will help a person in cardiac arrest as long as it is not interrupted. Sometimes, you have to haul no matter what. Our numbers are working out for the better. Right now, we are #1 in the nation for ROSC.
 
Does your state allow you to work them for however long and then leave them no matter where they are? ]
You are right, technology and training will help a person in cardiac arrest as long as it is not interrupted. Sometimes, you have to haul no matter what. Our numbers are working out for the better. Right now, we are #1 in the nation for ROSC.

Are you sure about the numbers? I hope you are not basing those numbers from Sacra's little study that is flawed as in proportion and values. Look at the scientific studies not propaganda.

R/r 911
 
Are you sure about the numbers? I hope you are not basing those numbers from Sacra's little study that is flawed as in proportion and values. Look at the scientific studies not propaganda.

R/r 911

Wow, someone's been around emsa and doesn't like Sacra. :P
 
Here paramedics are considered to valuable and in short supply to be tied up doing body service/coroner work.
Clear for the next live one....
 
"Does your state allow you to work them for however long and then leave them no matter where they are? "

BC is a province of Canada.

In most cases we don't transport bodies, of course there are exceptions.

Most ALS work a patient until they feel they have run out of options, no specific time guidelines, we have protocols based on ACLS algorythms however are encouraged to think outside of the box and provide treatment for differentials... Transport in CA is only for treatable causes.
 
Wow, someone's been around emsa and doesn't like Sacra. :P

Actually no. I have never worked at EMSA (proud to say) and John & I are good friends. I have known and worked with John in developing Trauma Centers and State EMS agencies for several decades but I also know the propaganda that was misreported too. Read into the studies and true statistics they are not what they were announced.

R/r 911
 
We transport most of our arrests. The times we would not transport is 1) Of course there is an obvious death 2) The pt has been in asystole the entire time of working them

Those are 2 times we would not, of course every code is different and decisions have to be made accordingly.

But, yes... we end up transport most of our codes to the ER.

Take Care,
 
For us, it's any "obvious signs of death." Rigor, lividity, extremely cool to the touch, missing head... Outside of that, we work the code and transport.

It may cause false hopes in some families when we transport a person who has been pulseless for at least half an hour before we even get there, but I think my agency balances it out with the liability issues of said family thinking we didn't do everything possible to help their loved one. Let the MD put it on their shoulders and malpractice insurance instead of us, I guess.
 
The recent series in JAMA based on CARES data (Cardiac Arrest Registry to Enhance Survival) should put everyone's mind at ease about terminating resuscitative efforts in the field. AHA has been encouraging this for years.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Excellent point TomB. Much safer to call it than attempt a futile transport.

I wonder if the transport orders have anything to do with billing?
 
Back
Top