Cardiac arrest & resuscitation
Emergency manual peri-crisis use six years following implementation: Sustainment of an intervention for rare crises
Authors' conclusion
After an initial expected drop, EM peri-crisis use six years post-implementation was: sustained without intensive additional efforts, averaged ∼10 times per month at a single institution, and was reported in more than half of cases with cardiac arrest or CPR.
Study context
- Population
- All patients undergoing anesthesia in the operating rooms of a major academic medical center during the study periods
- Participants
- ∼75,000 cases
- Exposure
- Initially vs One-year later vs Six years post-implementation
- Outcome
- Peri-crisis EM use (before, during or after a perioperative crisis), from a question at the end of every anesthetic case
Methodological detailssingle-institution
- Single-institution
Main finding
As reported in the abstract
Peri-crisis EM use
Difference (increase) (97.5% CI)
Six years post-implementation vs One-year laternot significantly different, showing sustainment
0.04%(−0.05% to 0.12%)
- One-year later vs Initially · dropped
- difference (drop) 0.38% (97.5% CI 0.26%–0.49%)
Observational data: associations, not effects.
Further findings
| Outcome | Initially | One-year later | Six years post-implementation |
|---|---|---|---|
| EM use in cases with cardiac arrest or CPR (subset proxy for relevant crises) | 54% (SE 13.6%) | 40% (SE 10.9%) | 54% (SE 13.6%) |
Original publication
Emergency manual peri-crisis use six years following implementation: Sustainment of an intervention for rare crises. J Clin Anesth. Published 31 March 2023. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →