Bradycardia at the onset of pulseless electrical activity arrests in hospitalized patients is associated with improved survival to discharge. Issue 2 (February 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Nguyen, Dan; Kritek, Patricia A.; Greco, Sheryl A.; Prutkin, Jordan M.
• Is Part Of: Heliyon. Volume 6:Issue 2(2020)
• Publication Date: 2020-02
• Subjects: Cardiology -- Cardiovascular system -- Circulatory system -- Critical care -- Clinical research -- Pulse electrical activity -- Bradycardia -- Cardiac arrest; Research -- Periodicals; Medical sciences -- Periodicals; Natural history -- Periodicals; Social sciences -- Periodicals; Earth sciences -- Periodicals; Physical sciences -- Periodicals; 507.2
• DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e03491
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2405-8440

Abstract

Abstract: Background: Recent studies have suggested that the incidence of in-hospital pulseless electrical activity (PEA) arrests is increasing. Bradycardia in patients with in-hospital PEA is common but it is unknown if it is associated with respiratory arrest or patient outcomes. Objective: To determine risk factors and outcomes associated with bradycardic-PEA arrests, and relationship between bradycardia and respiratory arrest. Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study of all inpatient cardiac arrests at an academic medical center over a four-year period. Patient demographics, comorbidities, vital signs, arrest event data, and outcomes were abstracted from the medical record. PEA arrest was defined as a non-shockable rhythm with loss of pulse requiring cardiopulmonary resuscitation and having organized electrocardiographic activity. Bradycardia was classified as a HR < 60 bpm at the time of pulse loss. The primary outcomes were survival of arrest and survival to hospital discharge. Results: Between July 2013 and August 2017, there were 176 in-hospital patients with PEA arrests. While 105 (59.7%) survived the arrest, only 38 (21.6%) survived to discharge. A total of 66 (37.5%) were bradycardic-PEA arrests. Patients with bradycardic PEA arrests were no more likely to have their arrest precipitated by respiratory failure than non-bradycardic PEA patients (36.4% vs 27.3%, P = 0.24), but patients with non-bradycardic PEA arrests were more likely to have a CIED than non-bradycardic PEA patients (14.5% vs 3.0%, P = 0.02). On multivariate analysis, bradycardic PEA was associated with improved survival to hospital discharge (OR = 3.31, 95% CI: 1.41–7.79, p = 0.006), but not survival of arrest (OR 1.45, 95% CI: 0.68–3.09, p = 0.34). Respiratory arrest was an independent predictor of survival of code (OR 2.62, 95% CI: 1.36–5.47, P = 0.01) and to hospital discharge (OR 3.47, 95% CI: 1.35–8.91, P = 0.01). Other predictors of survival to discharge include history of coronary artery disease, and non-use of epinephrine, atropine, and sodium bicarbonate. Conclusion: In a retrospective study of hospitalized patients in the intensive care unit and non-intensive care, bradycardia at the time of PEA cardiac arrest was associated with improved survival to hospital discharge but not survival of arrest. Respiratory arrest was an independent predictor of survival, but there was no association between respiratory arrest and bradycardic PEA arrest. Abstract : Cardiology; Cardiovascular system; Circulatory system; Critical care; Clinical research; Pulse electrical activity; Bradycardia; Cardiac arrest.