Background The role of cardiac arrest centers (CACs) in out‐of‐hospital cardiac arrest care systems is continuously evolving. Interpretation of existing literature is limited by heterogeneity in CAC characteristics and types of patients transported to CACs. This study assesses the impact of CACs on survival in out‐of‐hospital cardiac arrest according to varying definitions of CAC and prespecified subgroups. Methods and Results Electronic databases were searched from inception to March 9, 2021 for relevant studies. Centers were considered CACs if self‐declared by study authors and capable of relevant interventions. Main outcomes were survival and neurologically favorable survival at hospital discharge or 30 days. Meta‐analyses were performed for adjusted odds ratio (aOR) and crude odds ratios. Thirty‐six studies were analyzed. Survival with favorable neurological outcome significantly improved with treatment at CACs (aOR, 1.85 [95% CI, 1.52–2.26]), even when including high‐volume centers (aOR, 1.50 [95% CI, 1.18–1.91]) or including improved‐care centers (aOR, 2.13 [95% CI, 1.75–2.59]) as CACs. Survival significantly increased with treatment at CACs (aOR, 1.92 [95% CI, 1.59–2.32]), even when including high‐volume centers (aOR, 1.74 [95% CI, 1.38–2.18]) or when including improved‐care centers (aOR, 1.97 [95% CI, 1.71–2.26]) as CACs. The treatment effect was more pronounced among patients with shockable rhythm ( P =0.006) and without prehospital return of spontaneous circulation ( P =0.005). Conclusions were robust to sensitivity analyses, with no publication bias detected. Conclusions Care at CACs was associated with improved survival and neurological outcomes for patients with nontraumatic out‐of‐hospital cardiac arrest regardless of varying CAC definitions. Patients with shockable rhythms and those without prehospital return of spontaneous circulation benefited more from CACs. Evidence for bypassing hospitals or interhospital transfer remains inconclusive.

Background: The Integrated Palliative Care Outcome Scale (IPOS) was developed in the United Kingdom for health assessment in advanced illness. Objectives: To evaluate the validity and reliability of a culturally adapted IPOS (both patient and staff versions) for heart failure (HF). Design/Setting: We recruited HF patients and staff from a tertiary hospital in Singapore. We collected patient IPOS, New York Heart Association (NYHA) status, Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) and Minnesota Living with Heart Failure (MLHF) scores at baseline, and patient IPOS at follow-up. Each baseline patient IPOS was matched with a staff IPOS. Measurements: Pearson correlation coefficient ( r ) between ESAS, MLHF, and patient IPOS was calculated to assess construct validity. The two-sample T -test assessed difference in patient and staff IPOS scores across NYHA status and care settings for known-group validity. Internal consistency of patient and staff IPOS was assessed using Cronbach's alpha ( α ). Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was used to assess test-retest reliability of patient IPOS and inter-rater reliability between patient and staff IPOS. Results: Ninety-one patients and 12 staff participated. There was strong convergent validity of total patient IPOS with MLHF ( r = 0.78) and ESAS ( r = 0.81). There were statistically significant differences in total IPOS across care settings (patient-IPOS: 8.05, staff-IPOS 13.61) and NYHA (patient-IPOS: 7.52, staff-IPOS 12.71). There was high internal consistency of total patient ( α = 0.83) and staff IPOS ( α = 0.88) and high test-retest reliability of patient IPOS (ICC 0.81). Inter-rater reliability (ICC) ranged between 0.82 and 0.91. Conclusion: The IPOS was valid and reliable for HF patients in Singapore.

Background Survival after heart transplantation (HT) has improved considerably since the first HT was performed in 1967 in Cape Town, South Africa. Understanding immunology behind organ rejection has paved way for advances in the assessment of pre-transplant compatibility, development of newer and more specific immunosuppressive drugs, and management of rejection. Objectives Unlike medical therapy for heart failure, transplant protocols vary considerably between different centers. These variations in protocols generally reflect unique population characteristics and the availability of resources. This review article aims to provide a consolidated update on contemporary cardiac transplant medicine. We also aim to highlight local practice and its difference from our international counterparts. Methods A literature search was performed on Pubmed and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to identify trials and review articles that discussed heart transplant immunology and protocols. The International Society for Heart and Lung Transplant (ISHLT) guidelines were also reviewed. We focused on risk factors, prevention strategies, and treatment of cardiac rejection. Results A total of 48 articles were selected to provide a comprehensive overview of the contemporary practice of cardiac transplant immunosuppressive therapy. Comparisons were made with local data and practice protocols to highlight key differences. Conclusion Heart transplant covers a small subset of cardiac patients and much of the evidence is derived from empirical observations and retrospective analysis. This accounts for the heterogeneity in care and treatment protocols. More studies are needed to select best practices from around the world to further improve outcomes.