14465 results for "PLOS+ONE+Pennsylvania+German+ACS+language+code+pdc+open+access+study"

in 16.90 milliseconds.

• Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium (ROC) Trauma Epidemiologic Registry (Trauma Epistry) (ROC-Trauma Epistry-BioLINCC)

  Data Access NOTE: Please refer to the "Authorized Access" section below for information about how access to the data from this accession differs from many other dbGaP accessions.Available Data: This dataset only includes traumatic injury participants. For ROC cardiac arrest Epistry data please see: ROC-Cardiac Epistry 1 and 2 and ROC-Cardiac Epistry 3.Objectives: To build a prospective population-based registry of participants with out-of-hospital traumatic injury responded to by Emergency Medical Services (EMS). Specific aims included: to establish whether the results of Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium (ROC) trials can be generalized to the larger population of people that experience traumatic injury; to more fully establish the burden of traumatic injury; and to examine the relationships between variation in EMS structure and process, regional and periodic factors, and participant outcomes.Background: Traumatic injury is a major public health problem generating substantial morbidity, mortality, and economic burden on society. The majority of seriously injured persons are initially evaluated and cared for by prehospital providers, however the effect of EMS systems, EMS clinical care, and EMS interventions on trauma patient outcomes is largely unknown. EMS factors such as service level, number of responding providers, use of procedures or drugs in the field, training, quality assurance/feedback, and response time intervals also vary significantly by region.The Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium (ROC) was established in 2004 to conduct clinical research in the areas of cardiopulmonary arrest and life-threatening traumatic injury with the overall goal of improving resuscitation outcomes. Previous trauma registries have generally focused primarily on hospitalized patients with limited prehospital information. Registries may also exclude trauma cases at far ends of the spectrum, such as those who die in the field or in a non-trauma center and/or patients that are treated and released. These limitations do not allow for detailed, outcome-based assessments of EMS system factors necessary to define prehospital resuscitation best practices. Therefore there was a need for standardized data collection of out-of-hospital traumatic injuries matched to hospital-based outcomes in diverse geographic locations in order to identify the independent effects of prognostic or treatment factors accounting for variations in survival. Participants: The registry included 13,830 traumatic events from 264 EMS agencies transporting to 287 acute care hospitals from the following regional centers: Birmingham, Alabama; Dallas, Texas; Iowa City, Iowa; Milwaukee, Wisconsin; Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Portland, Oregon; San Diego, California; Seattle/King County, Washington; Ottawa, Ontario; Toronto, Ontario; and Vancouver, British Columbia.Design: ROC Epistry collected standardized data regarding episode-specific factors, participant demographics, clinical information, pre-hospital interventions and disposition, hospital information, and participant outcome for all out-of-hospital traumatic injuries in the ROC regions. Cases were identified through review of emergency response system records including dispatch centers, EMS ground agencies, and air medical services. Out-of-hospital data were extracted from existing databases whenever possible and augmented with targeted review of EMS reports. Hospital data were abstracted directly from the hospital file in most cases. Sites submitted data using a web-based interface or batch uploads (Newgard, et al., 2008, PMID: 18482792).

  Study phs003809

• Single cell epigenomic study of H3-K27M mutant diffuse midline glioma across age and location

  This dataset contains the open chromatin profiles of 8 patient H3-K27M mutant DMGs utilizing the single-cell/nucleus assay for transposase-accessible chromatin using sequencing (snATAC-seq)

  Dataset EGAD00001010170

• FEGA and European GDI: working together to improve human health

  The Federated EGA is a global resource for discovery of and access to sensitive human omics and associated data consented for secondary use, through a network of human data repositories to accelerate biomedical research and improve human health. The Federated EGA network was launched in September 2022 with five inaugural nodes, and since 2023 seven operational nodes can share data across national borders in adherence to European and national laws. A few weeks after FEGA's official launch, in November 2022, the European Genomic Data Infrastructure (GDI) project was kicked-off . This European Commission co-funded project, coordinated by ELIXIR, is aimed to deliver federated, sustainable and secure data infrastructure to access genomic and related phenotypic and clinical data across Europe. This project supports the aim of the 1+MG initiative (25 EU countries, Norway and UK) to enable personalised medicine and health through a shared framework and infrastructure for securely accessing and integrating high quality genomic data and other health data across borders.1+MG will be an integral component of the European Health Data Space (EHDS) for secondary use (Healthdata@EU) as an authorised participant. How are Federated EGA and GDI similar? Given their shared visions, the Federated EGA and European GDI networks have a lot in common. To begin, they share the same overall goal of establishing networks of “nodes” that host sensitive human data within a jurisdiction and connecting these nodes in a global network to support data discovery and promote human genome data access for research and healthcare. FEGA and GDI are both initially focused on enabling access to human genomic data, while FEGA ambition is to expand the scope to clinical research data and other omics data in the future. FEGA and GDI are both built on open and interoperable software solutions, a subset of which are based on the LocalEGA components. FEGA and GDI implementation solutions are based on international community standards, for example those developed by the Global Alliance for Genomics and Health, which contributes to making them interoperable. Both FEGA and GDI allow for the nodes to make use of any solution that is fully compatible. As illustrated in Figure 1, a final key point is the significant overlap of institutions involved in envisioning and operating FEGA and GDI nodes, with the clear wish to keep them interoperable in the future. What distinguishes Federated EGA from GDI? Despite being largely similar, there are some differences between the FEGA and GDI networks, which we aim to clarify in this post. The first difference is the governance model that the nodes will operate to comply with national laws and GDPR. In the FEGA network, nodes have taken inspiration from the EGA data access model, where the infrastructure is a data processor of the hosted data and data controllership remains with the originating Data Access Committees (i.e. Data controllers) for each dataset. On the other hand, in the GDI network the controllership of datasets will be transferred to a 1+MG European Digital Infrastructure Consortium (EDIC) legal entity created by the Member States (MS), who will make data access decisions, with data holders having veto powers for their datasets. Importantly, FEGA nodes have the flexibility to choose another model to fit with their data protection framework, including becoming data controllers for their datasets. The second difference is the inclusion criteria for data. While FEGA nodes are designed to accept almost any type of omics data in need of control access (e.g. genomics, transcriptomics, genotyping, single cells sequencing, patient-tracked metagenomics), GDI nodes are initially, but not only, focused on accepting whole genome and exome sequencing data and affiliated data from sources such as (i) the Genome of Europe use case of the 1+MG initiative which specifically aims to fulfil the mission of building “a European network of national genomic reference cohorts of at least 500,000 citizens”) (ii) data collection of other types of genomic data identified by countries through the 1+MG dashboard and (iii) genomic data coming from data holders which would need to fulfil EHDS requirements. The third difference is the maturity of the software stacks. The FEGA network provides a set of software for data and metadata submission, storage, permissions management, and file distribution (the LocalEGA package). GDI is building a complete set of open source reference for the five functionalities covering the full data life cycle (a few more compared to the LocalEGA) including federated processing (analytics, AI/ML), which is still under active development. Notably, one of the GDI functionalities - storage and interfaces - can be satisfied by using the LocalEGA storage solution, highlighting the ability of FEGA and GDI to be interoperable. In both FEGA and GDI, nodes are allowed to use alternative solutions as long as they are fully interoperable with the networks. Figure 1 provides a simple overview of these described commonalities and differences. Figure1: schematic overview of the main commonalities and difference among a FEGA and a GDI node Can the same institute run a FEGA and a GDI node at the same time? The answer is Yes! We believe this is entirely possible and encouraged. As long as 1+MG requirements are continuously fulfilled in the implementation. The same trained personnel could operate the infrastructure and leverage the same national funding to run a FEGA and a GDI node. Several European nodes, especially GDI vanguard nodes like Norway, Sweden, Finland and Spain are following this model. The idea is that a lot of the work can be reused, given the overlapping scope and the interoperable technology. Thus, the hosted datasets can be discovered via the two catalogues, perhaps accessible under the same or different governance models. From a FEGA node perspective, the GDI datasets could simply be a subset of the datasets hosted in the FEGA node, which have their specific governance as any other. What's next? So, the amazing teams of people building the Federated EGA network and the European GDI network are working together to create infrastructures able to provide secure access to human genomic and associated data around Europe. Because we all know how much human genomics can improve healthcare and precision medicine. And we all want to collaborate to make it happen. This article has been reviewed collectively by members of the EGA and the GDI coordination team.

  Blog fega-and-gdi

• FFPE, buffycoat and cell free DNA from N. German esophagus cancer patients - 2021

  We recruited 28 patients and sequenced samples from their FFPE tissue, full blood buffy coat and plasma cell free DNA from diagnosis and other, longitudinal time points. The cell free DNA was sequenced ultra-deeply. The IDT PanCancer panel was used for targeted enrichment. Aims: detection of primary tumor mutations in cell free DNA, overlap and difference in mutation profiles between primary tumor, metastases and cell free DNA.

  Study EGAS00001006813

• Sequence Data for DEEP Release August 2016

  DEEP (German Epigenome Project) sequence data of following samples (Sequencing Types: Chip-Seq, WGBS-Seq, RNA-Seq, sncRNA-Seq, NOMe-Se, DNase-Seq): 41_Hf01_LiHe_Ct, 41_Hf02_LiHe_Ct, 41_Hf03_LiHe_Ct, 01_HepG2_LiHG_Ct1, 01_HepG2_LiHG_Ct2, 01_HepaRG_LiHR_D31, 01_HepaRG_LiHR_D32, 01_HepaRG_LiHR_D33, 43_Hm01_BlMo_Ct, 43_Hm03_BlMo_Ct, 43_Hm05_BlMo_Ct, 43_Hm03_BlMa_Ct, 43_Hm05_BlMa_Ct, 43_Hm03_BlMa_TO, 43_Hm05_BlMa_TO, 43_Hm03_BlMa_TE, 43_Hm05_BlMa_TE, 51_Hf01_BlCM_Ct, 51_Hf03_BlCM_Ct, 51_Hf04_BlCM_Ct, 51_Hf02_BlCM_Ct, 51_Hf05_BlCM_Ct, 51_Hf06_BlCM_Ct, 51_Hf06_BlCM_T1, 51_Hf06_BlCM_T2, 51_Hf03_BlEM_Ct, 51_Hf04_BlEM_Ct, 51_Hf02_BlEM_Ct, 51_Hf05_BlEM_Ct, 51_Hf06_BlEM_Ct, 51_Hf06_BlEM_T1, 51_Hf06_BlEM_T2, 51_Hf03_BlTN_Ct, 51_Hf04_BlTN_Ct, 51_Hf02_BlTN_Ct, 51_Hf05_BlTN_Ct, 51_Hf06_BlTN_Ct, 51_Hf06_BlTN_T1, 51_Hf06_BlTN_T2, 51_Hf07_BmTM4_Ct, 51_Hf08_BlTM4_Ct, 51_Hf08_BmTM4_SP1, 51_Hf08_BmTM4_SP2, 51_Hf05_BlTA_Ct, 44_Mm01_WEAd_C2, 44_Mm03_WEAd_C2, 44_Mm02_WEAd_C2, 44_Mm07_WEAd_C2, 44_Mm04_WEAd_C1, 44_Mm05_WEAd_C1

  Dataset EGAD00001002527

• National Emphysema Treatment Trial (NETT-BioLINCC)

  Data Access NOTE: Please refer to the “Authorized Access” section below for information about how access to the data from this accession differs from many other dbGaP accessions. Available Data: The current release of the NETT study dataset includes follow-up data through May of 2013.Objectives: To compare lung-volume-reduction surgery with medical therapy for severe emphysema, and to identify participant selection criteria for lung volume reduction surgery.Background: Lung-volume-reduction surgery has been proposed as a palliative treatment for severe emphysema. Effects on mortality, the magnitude and durability of benefits, and criteria for the selection of participants have not been established.Participants: A total of 1,218 participants with severe emphysema underwent pulmonary rehabilitation and were randomly assigned at 17 centers to undergo lung-volume-reduction surgery (bilateral stapled wedge resection) or to receive continued medical treatment. Participants were randomized after a 6-10 week pulmonary rehabilitation period and participants with a forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) that was 20 percent or less of predicted and a homogeneous distribution of emphysema or carbon monoxide diffusing capacity 20 percent or less of predicted were not eligible for randomization due to poor post-surgery prognosis for death or functional improvement.Conclusions: Overall, lung-volume-reduction surgery increases the chance of improved exercise capacity but does not confer a survival advantage over medical therapy. It does yield a survival advantage for participants with both predominantly upper-lobe emphysema and low base-line exercise capacity. Participants previously reported to be at high risk and those with non-upper-lobe emphysema and high base-line exercise capacity are poor candidates for lung-volume-reduction surgery, because of increased mortality and negligible functional gain. (NEJM 2003;348:2059-2073).

  Study phs004077

• Whole Genome Sequencing Analysis in a Family of Discordant Twins With Non-Syndromic Microtia and Hemifacial Microsomia: Identification of Novel Candidate Genes and Variants

  This research is a non-NIH effort to discover the pathogenesis of non-syndromic microtia and to detect potential candidate genes. Microtia (OMIM 600674, 612290, 251800) is a spectrum of congenital anomalies and facial abnormalities, 90% of the cases followed by hearing loss. Two types of the disease are described in terms of connection to the affected syndromes: anomalies (syndromic) and only clinical manifestation (non-syndromic) associated with other symptoms. Though the exact pathogenesis of microtia remains unknown, pathogenic genes of majority of the microtia syndromic types have been identified. However, the genetic mutation of the non-syndromic microtia has not been confirmed. In this study, whole genome sequencing (WGS) was utilized to screen mutations in monozygotic discordant twins of congenital microtia-atresia and their family members. One of the twins, along with her grandfather, was discordant for microtia-atresia. By bioinformatic analysis of the WGS data from monozygotic twins with microtia and their non-microtia relatives, we proposed that among 28 identified potential genes, 4 of them (CNOT1, ODAD4, TBX15, and GIPC3) could be more responsible for non-syndromic microtia development and phenotypic features. Interested investigators may request to access the DNA genomic sequencing data of the study participants via dbGaP authorized access. In addition to raw genomic sequencing data, datasets of germline mutations and candidate gene mutations may also be available for investigators to request.

  Study phs003216

• eMERGE Network Imputed GWAS for 41 Phenotypes

  The electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE) Network is a consortium of ten participating sites (Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center/Boston Children's Hospital, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Essentia Institute of Rural Health, Marshfield Clinic Research Foundation and Pennsylvania State University, Geisinger Clinic, Group Health Cooperative/University of Washington, Mayo Clinic, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, Northwestern University, Vanderbilt University Medical Center) funded by the NHGRI to investigate the use of electronic medical record (EMR) systems for genomic research. The goal of eMERGE is to conduct genome-wide association studies in approximately 55,000 individuals using EMR-derived phenotypes and DNA from linked Biorepositories. Using electronic phenotyping methods, the consortium used DNA samples from all participating sites to explore the genetic determinants of over forty phenotypes, including Abdominal aortic aneurysm; Ace-Inhibitor/Cough; Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder; Age-related macular disease; Appendicitis; Asthma; Atopic Dermatitis; Autism; Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia; Carotid artery disease as a Quantitative Measure; caMRSA; Cataract; Clostridium difficile colitis; Extreme Obesity; Chronic Kidney Disease; Chronic Kidney Disease and Type 2 Diabetes; Chronic Kidney Disease, Type 2 Diabetes and Hypertension; Colon Polyps; Cardiorespiratory Fitness; Dementia; Diverticulosis; Diabetic retinopathy; Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease; Glaucoma; Height; Heart failure; Hypothyroidism; Lipids; Ocular hypertension; Peripheral Arterial Disease; QRS duration; Red blood cell indices; Remission of Diabetes after ROUX-EN-Y gastric bypass surgery; Resistant hypertension; MACE while on Statins; Type 2 Diabetes; Venous Thromboembolism; White blood cell indices; and Zoster virus infection, as well as using the phenome-wide association study (PheWAS) paradigm to replicate and discover relationships between targeted genotypes with multiple phenotypes. Sites and participants include: Children's Hospital of Pennsylvania (CHOP): The Center for Applied Genomics (CAG) at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP) is a high-throughput, highly automated genotyping and sequencing facility equipped with state-of-the-art genotyping and sequencing platforms. Children who are treated at the Children's Hospital Healthcare Network and their parents may be eligible to take part in a major initiative to collect more than 100,000 blood samples, covering a wide range of pediatric diseases. A large majority of participants consenting to prospective genomic analyses also consent to analysis of their de-identified electronic medical records (EMRs). EMRs are longitudinal, with a mean duration of 6.5 years. Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center/Boston's Children's Hospital (CCHMC/BCH): Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center (CCHMC) and Boston Children's Hospital (BCH) are pediatric institutions dedicated to improving health and welfare of children and to the shared purpose of discovery and practical application of new genomic information to the ordinary care of children. The CCHMC/BCH site has been built on a five-year history of collaboration, particularly in patient electronic record (ERM)-related informatics, the basis of much of eMERGE II. CCHMC and BCH together bring an extraordinary faculty to eMERGE II who are committed to diseases that afflict children, specifically phenotypes that focus upon diseases of children in ways that will leverage the available eMERGE adult GWAS and EMRs to discover meaningful use results. CCHMC/BCH plans to demonstrate real-time execution of phenotypic selection across their two distinct pediatric institutions as a model for ensuring phenotypic standardization and for national scalability. They will also look carefully at parents' responses to results and use of their children's research results and better understand the factors that influence their decisions about learning incidental findings. In addition to patient and parent perceptions CCHMC/BCH will also explore clinician perceptions of pharmacogenetic research results after EMR integration. Geisinger Health System: A research cohort of adult Geisinger Clinic patients was enrolled from community-based primary care clinics of the Geisinger Health System. Patients were eligible for enrollment if they were a primary care patient of a Geisinger Clinic physician and were scheduled for a non-emergent clinic visit. All participants provided written informed consent and HIPAA authorization. Consenting patients agreed to provide blood samples for broad biomedical research use, and permission to access data in their Geisinger electronic medical record for research. The enrollment rate was 90% of patients approached. The demographics of the cohort approximate those of the Geisinger Clinic outpatient population. Research blood samples were collected during an outpatient clinical phlebotomy encounter. Research blood samples are coded and stored in a central biorepository. Samples are linkable to clinical data in a de-identified manner for research via an IRB-approved data broker process. For genomic analysis, DNA is extracted from EDTA-anticoagulated whole blood. Group Health(GH)/University of Washington (UW): GH participants for the PGx project were enrolled in the eMERGE Network through the Northwest Institute of Genetic Medicine (NWIGM) biorepository, and provided the appropriate consent to receive clinically relevant genetic results (N~6300.) Participants were eligible if aged 50 - 65 years old at the time of their enrollment into the NWIGM repository, living, enrolled in GH's integrated group practice, and had completed an online Health Risk Appraisal. The selection algorithm was based on several data sources from the EHR at Group Health: 1. Demographics - participants with self-reported race as Asian or African ancestry were prioritized and selected to enrich for non-European ancestry; 2. Diagnosis and procedure codes - participants were selected if found to have a history of hypertension, atrial fibrillation (AF), or congestive heart failure (CHF). Participants with a history of arrhythmia were added if the entire selection algorithm did not generate 900 individuals. We also enriched for participants with EHR evidence of actionable indications related to PGRNSeq genes. Participants were selected if found to have an ICD9 code for malignant hyperthermia, hypertension, atrial fibrillation, congestive heart failure or long QT syndrome (LQTS); 3. Laboratory values - if participants had any laboratory event of creatine kinase (CK) >1000, and were dispensed statins within 6 months of the event, then they were selected; and 4. Medications - participants were excluded if ever on carbamazepine or had a current regimen of warfarin. Essentia Institute of Rural Health, Marshfield Clinic, Pennsylvania State University (Marshfield): The Marshfield Clinic Personalized Medicine Research Project is a population-based biobank in central Wisconsin with more than 20,000 adult subjects who provided written, informed consent to access their medical records and provided a blood sample from which DNA was extracted and plasma and serum stored. In addition to an average of 30 years of medical history data, a questionnaire about environmental exposures, including a detailed food frequency questionnaire, is available to facilitate gene/environment studies. Mayo Clinic: The Mayo biobank is a disease-specific biobank for vascular diseases including peripheral arterial disease (PAD). PAD patients were identified from individuals referred to the non-invasive vascular laboratory for lower extremity arterial evaluation. Since 1997, laboratory findings have been recorded into an electronic database employing an in-house software package for data archiving and retrieval; this data becomes part of the Mayo EMR. Patients referred to the center with suspected PAD undergo a comprehensive non-invasive evaluation including the ankle-brachial index (ABI) - the ratio of blood pressure measured in the upper arms divided by blood pressure measured at the ankles. Controls subjects are identified from patients referred to the Cardiovascular Health Clinic for stress ECG. The prevalence of PAD in patients with normal exercise capacity who do not have inducible ischemia on the stress ECG , was <1%. Data regarding risk factors for atherosclerosis such as diabetes, dyslipidemia, hypertension, and smoking are ascertained from the EMR. Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai School (Mt. Sinai): The Institute for Personalized Medicine (IPM) Biobank Project is a consented, EMR-linked medical care setting biorepository of the Mount Sinai Medical Center (MSMC) drawing from a population of over 70,000 inpatients and 800,000 outpatient visits annually. MSMC serves diverse local communities of upper Manhattan, including Central Harlem (86% African American), East Harlem (88% Hispanic Latino), and Upper East Side (88% Caucasian/white) with broad health disparities. IPM Biobank populations include 28% African American (AA), 38% Hispanic Latino (HL) predominantly of Caribbean origin, 23% Caucasian/White (CW). IPM Biobank disease burden is reflective of health disparities with broad public health impact: average body mass index of 28.9 and frequencies of hypertension (55%), hypercholesterolemia (32%), diabetes (30%), coronary artery disease (25%), chronic kidney disease (23%), among others. Biobank operations are fully integrated in clinical care processes, including direct recruitment from clinical sites, waiting areas and phlebotomy stations by dedicated Biobank recruiters independent of clinical care providers, prior to or following a clinician standard of care visit. Recruitment currently occurs at a broad spectrum of over 30 clinical care sites. Northwestern University: The NUgene Project is a repository with longitudinal medical information from participating patients at affiliated hospitals and outpatient clinics from the Northwestern University Medical Center. Participants' DNA samples are coupled with data from a self-reported questionnaire and continuously updated data from our Electronic Medical Record (EMR) representing actual clinical care events. Northwestern has a state-of-the art, comprehensive inpatient and outpatient EMR system of over 2 million patients. NUgene has broad access to participant data for all outpatient visits as well as inpatient data via a consolidated data warehouse. NUgene participants consent to distribution and use of their coded DNA samples and data for a broad range of genetic research by third-party investigators. Vanderbilt University: BioVU, Vanderbilt's DNA databank, is an enabling resource for exploration of the relationships among genetic variation, disease susceptibility, and variable drug responses, and represents a key first step in moving the emerging sciences of genomics and pharmacogenomics from research tools to clinical practice. BioVU acquires DNA from discarded blood samples collected from routine patient care. The biobank is linked to de-identified clinical data extracted from Vanderbilt's EMR, which forms the basis for phenotype definitions used in genotype-phenotype correlations.

  Study phs000888

• Mosaic structural variation sample

  Mosaic Normal-Tumor genomes are generated from real normal-tumor pairs with validated somatic variants. In this case, validated variants from the GRIDSS2 paper. Mosaic genomes were generated using GenomeMosaicMaker, an open-source software tool designed and implemented for this specific purpose. The variants provided in the VCF truth file for each mosaic tumor/normal pair were annotated using funnSV for SVs and VEP for SNVs and indels. All CRAM files are aligned to GRCh37. Please see https://github.com/EUCANCan/oncoliner and https://github.com/Computational-Genomics-BSC/GenomeMosaicMaker for more information.

  Study EGAS50000000460

• Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium (ROC) Amiodarone, Lidocaine or Neither for Out-Of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest Due to Ventricular Fibrillation or Ventricular Tachycardia (ALPS)(ROC-ALPS-BioLINCC)

  Accessing Data Please refer to “Authorized Access” below regarding accessing data through the BioData Catalyst ecosystem. The data from this accession is not available for download through dbGaP. Objective To compare the effects of amiodarone, lidocaine, and placebo on survival to hospital discharge after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest due to shock-refractory ventricular fibrillation or pulseless ventricular tachycardia. Background Ventricular fibrillation (VF) or pulseless ventricular tachycardia (VT) are common causes of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, but are considered the most responsive to shock and therefore the most treatable. Nonetheless, most defibrillation attempts do not result in sustained return of spontaneous circulation, and VF or VT may persist or recur after shock. There is also evidence that longer durations of VF or VT are associated with decreases in the likelihood of resuscitation. Amiodarone and lidocaine are commonly used to promote successful defibrillation of shock-refractory VF or VT and prevent recurrences. Previous trials have shown amiodarone to be more effective than placebo or lidocaine for return of spontaneous circulation and survival at hospital admittance. This study sought to further extend the research and examine whether amiodarone would improve survival to hospital discharge and neurologic outcomes, as compared to placebo or lidocaine. Participants 3,026 eligible participants were enrolled, with 974 assigned to amiodarone, 993 assigned to lidocaine, and 1,059 assigned to placebo. An additional 1,627 participants that received a study intervention, but did not meet eligibility criteria, were included in analysis of the intention-to-treat population. Design The study interventions (amiodarone, lidocaine, and saline) were packaged in indistinguishable sealed kits and randomly distributed in to Emergency Medical Services (EMS) providers in a 1:1:1 ratio, stratified by participating site and agency. Each kit contained three syringes, and each syringe held 3 ml of colorless fluid containing 150 mg of amiodarone, 60 mg of lidocaine, or normal saline. Participants with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest were treated in accordance with local EMS protocols, in compliance with American Heart Association (AHA) guidelines. If VF or VT persisted or recurred after one or more shocks, eligible participants received a vasopressor and the masked kit containing amiodarone, lidocaine, or placebo. Approximating current clinical practice, the initial dose consisted of two syringes administered by rapid bolus. If the estimated body weight of the patient was less than 100 lbs., then one syringe was used. If VF or VT persisted, standard resuscitation measures, additional shocks, and an additional syringe of the study drug were administered. At that point the trial interventions were completed and standard interventions for advanced life support were employed. Upon arrival at the hospital, providers were notified of the patient's enrollment in the trial and encouraged to provide usual care in accordance with AHA guidelines, including open-label amiodarone or lidocaine if necessary. Components of hospital care were monitored but not standardized by the trial protocol. Participants, providers, and trial personnel were blinded to the trial drug assignments, with the exception of treating physicians if emergency un-blinding was required for care. Data from pre-hospital patient care records, CPR process measures, and hospital medical records were collected. The primary outcome of the trial was survival to hospital discharge, and the secondary outcome was survival with favorable neurologic status at discharge, defined as a score on the modified Rankin scale of 3 or less. Conclusions Neither amiodarone nor lidocaine resulted in a significantly higher rate of survival to hospital discharge or favorable neurologic outcome, as compared to placebo, among participants with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest due to initial shock-refractory ventricular fibrillation or pulseless ventricular tachycardia.

  Study phs003784