Search

More than 1,000 patients experience sudden cardiac arrest each day. Treatment for this includes cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR_ and emergency medical services (EMS) that provide CPR-basic life support (BLS), BLS with defibrillation (BLS-D), or advanced life support (ALS). Our previous systematic review of treatments for sudden cardiac arrest was limited by suboptimal data. Since then, debate has increased about whether bystander CPR is effective or whether attention should focus instead on rapid defibrillation. Therefore a cumulative meta-analysis was conducted to determine the relative effectiveness of differences in the defibrillation response time interval, proportion of bystander CPR, and type of EMS system on survival after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.A comprehensive literature search was performed by using a priori exclusion criteria. We considered EMS systems that provided BLS-D, ALS, BLS plus ALS, or BLS-D plus ALS care. A generalized linear model was used with dispersion estimation for random effects.Thirty-seven eligible articles described 39 EMS systems and included 33, 124 patients. Median survival for all rhythm groups to hospital discharge was 6.4% (interquartile range, 3.7 to 10.3). Odds of survival were 1.06 (95% confidence interval [Cl], 1.03 to 1.09; P.01) per 5% increase in bystander CPR. Survival was constant if the defibrillation response time interval was less than 6 minutes, decreased as the interval increased from 6 to 11 minutes, and leveled of after 11 minutes (P.01). Compared with BLS-D, odds of survival were as follows: ALS, 1.71 (95% Cl, 1.09 to 2.70; P=.01); BLS plus ALS, 1.47 (95% Cl, 0.89 to 2.42; P=.07); and BLS with defibrillation plus ALS, 2.31 (95% Cl, 1.47 to 3.62; P.01.) Conclusion: We confirm that greater survival after sudden cardiac arrest is associated with provision of bystander CPR, early defibrillation, or ALS. More research is required to evaluate the relative benefit of early defibrillation versus early ALS.

Study objective: More than 1,000 patients experience sudden cardiac arrest each day. Treatment for this includes cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR_ and emergency medical services (EMS) that provide CPR-basic life support (BLS), BLS with defibrillation (BLS-D), or advanced life support (ALS). Our previous systematic review of treatments for sudden cardiac arrest was limited by suboptimal data. Since then, debate has increased about whether bystander CPR is effective or whether attention should focus instead on rapid defibrillation. Therefore a cumulative meta-analysis was conducted to determine the relative effectiveness of differences in the defibrillation response time interval, proportion of bystander CPR, and type of EMS system on survival after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Methods : A comprehensive literature search was performed by using a priori exclusion criteria. We considered EMS systems that provided BLS-D, ALS, BLS plus ALS, or BLS-D plus ALS care. A generalized linear model was used with dispersion estimation for random effects. Results : Thirty-seven eligible articles described 39 EMS systems and included 33, 124 patients. Median survival for all rhythm groups to hospital discharge was 6.4% (interquartile range, 3.7 to 10.3). Odds of survival were 1.06 (95% confidence interval [Cl], 1.03 to 1.09; P P P =.01); BLS plus ALS, 1.47 (95% Cl, 0.89 to 2.42; P =.07); and BLS with defibrillation plus ALS, 2.31 (95% Cl, 1.47 to 3.62; P Conclusion : We confirm that greater survival after sudden cardiac arrest is associated with provision of bystander CPR, early defibrillation, or ALS. More research is required to evaluate the relative benefit of early defibrillation versus early ALS.

Study objective We assess survival from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest after community-wide implementation of 2005 American Heart Association guidelines. Methods This was an observational multiphase before-after cohort in an urban/suburban community (population 840,000) with existing advanced life support. Included were all adults treated for cardiac arrest by emergency responders. Excluded were patients younger than 16 years and trauma patients. Intervention phases in months were baseline 16; phase 1, new cardiopulmonary resuscitation 12; phase 2, impedance threshold device 6; and phase 3, full implementation including out-of-hospital-induced hypothermia 12. Primary outcome was survival to discharge. Other survival and neurologic outcomes were compared between study phases, and adjusted odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for survival by phase were determined by multivariate regression. Results One thousand three hundred sixty-five cardiac arrest patients were eligible for inclusion: baseline n=425, phase 1 n=369, phase 2 n=161, phase 3 n=410. Across phases, patients had similar demographic, clinical, and emergency medical services characteristics. Overall and witnessed ventricular fibrillation and ventricular tachycardia survival improved throughout the study phases: respectively, baseline 4.2% and 13.8%, phase 1 7.3% and 23.9%, phase 2 8.1% and 34.6%, and phase 3 11.5% and 40.8%. The absolute increase for overall survival from baseline to full implementation was 7.3% (95% CI 3.7% to 10.9%); witnessed ventricular fibrillation/ventricular tachycardia survival was 27.0% (95% CI 13.6% to 40.4%), representing an additional 25 lives saved annually in this community. Conclusion In the context of a community-wide focus on resuscitation, the sequential implementation of 2005 American Heart Association guidelines for compressions, ventilations, and induced hypothermia significantly improved survival after cardiac arrest. Further study is required to clarify the relative contribution of each intervention to improved survival outcomes.

Study objective: Many centers optimize their emergency medical services (EMS) systems to achieve a target defibrillation response interval of "call received by dispatch" to "arrival at scene by responder with defibrillator" in 8 minutes or less for at least 90% of cardiac arrest cases. The objective of this study was to analyze survival as a function of time to test the evidence for this standard. Methods: This prospective cohort study included all adult, cardiac etiology, out-of-hospital cardiac arrest cases from phases I and II of the Ontario Prehospital Advanced Life Support (OPALS) study. Patients in the 21 Ontario study communities received a basic life support level of care with defibrillation by ambulance and firefighters but no advanced life support. Survival was plotted as a function of the defibrillation response interval. The equation of the curve, generated by means of logistic regression, was used to estimate survival at various defibrillation response interval cutoff points. Results: From January 1, 1991, to December 31, 1997, there were 392 (4.2%) survivors overall among the 9,273 patients treated. The defibrillation response interval mean was 6.2 minutes, and the 90th percentile was 9.3 minutes. There was a steep decrease in the first 5 minutes of the survival curve, beyond which the slope gradually leveled off. Controlling for known covariates, the decrement in the odds of survival with increasing response interval was 0.77 per minute (95% confidence interval 0.74 to 0.83). The survival function predicts, for successive 90th percentile cutoff points, both survival rates and additional lives saved per year in the OPALS communities compared with the 8-minute standard: 9 minutes (4.6%; −18 lives), 8 minutes (5.9%; 0 lives), 7 minutes (7.5%; 23 lives), 6 minutes (9.5%; 51 lives), and 5 minutes (12.0%; 86 lives). Conclusion: The 8-minute target established in many communities is not supported by our data as the optimal EMS defibrillation response interval for cardiac arrest. EMS system leaders should consider the effect of decreasing the 90th percentile defibrillation response interval to less than 8 minutes. [ Ann Emerg Med. 2003;42:242-250.]

The Utstein guidelines recommend that emergency medical services (EMS)-witnessed cardiac arrests be considered separately from other out-of-hospital cardiac arrest cases. The objective of this study was to assess EMS-witnessed cardiac arrest and to determine predictors of survival in this group.This prospective cohort included all adults with an EMS-witnessed cardiac arrest in the 21 communities of the Ontario Prehospital Advanced Life Support (OPALS) study. Systems provided a basic life support with defibrillation (BLS-D) level of care. Case and survival definitions followed the Utstein style. Descriptive and univariate methods (chi(2) and t test) were used to characterize EMS-witnessed cardiac arrest. Multivariate logistic regression was undertaken to assess predictors of survival to hospital discharge.From January 1, 1991, to December 31, 1996, there were 9,072 cardiac arrest cases in the study communities. Of these, 610 (6.7%) were EMS-witnessed. The majority had preexisting cardiac or respiratory disease (81.5%) and experienced prodromal symptoms before EMS personnel arrived (91.4%). An initial rhythm of pulseless electrical activity was present in 50.1% of the patients, ventricular fibrillation/ventricular tachycardia in 34.2%, and asystole in 15.7%. Survival to discharge was 12.6%. Multivariate analysis identified the following as independent predictors of survival (odds ratio with 95% confidence intervals [CIs]): nitroglycerin use before EMS arrival: 2.3 (95% CI 1.2 to 4.5), prodromal symptoms of chest pain: 2.5 (95% CI 1.4 to 4.5) or dyspnea: 0.5 (95% CI 0.3 to 1.0), and unconsciousness on EMS arrival: 0.5 (95% CI 0.2 to 0.9). Patients with chest pain were more likely than dyspneic patients to experience ventricular fibrillation/ventricular tachycardia (62% versus 17%, P.0001), and were 5 times more likely to survive (30.6% versus 6.3%, P.0001).EMS-witnessed cases are clearly an important subset of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest and are characterized by 2 distinct symptom groups: chest pain and dyspnea. These symptoms are important predictors of survival and may also help determine underlying mechanisms before patient collapse. A later phase of the OPALS study will prospectively evaluate the impact of out-of-hospital advanced life support on the survival of victims of EMS-witnessed cardiac arrest.

More than 1,000 patients experience sudden cardiac arrest each day. Treatment for this includes cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and emergency medical services (EMS) that provide CPR-basic life support (BLS), BLS with defibrillation (BLS-D), or advanced life support (ALS). Our previous systematic review of treatments for sudden cardiac arrest was limited by suboptimal data. Since then, debate has increased about whether bystander CPR is effective or whether attention should focus instead on rapid defibrillation. Therefore a cumulative meta-analysis was conducted to determine the relative effectiveness of differences in the defibrillation response time interval, proportion of bystander CPR, and type of EMS system on survival after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.A comprehensive literature search was performed by using a priori exclusion criteria. We considered EMS systems that provided BLS-D, ALS, BLS plus ALS, or BLS-D plus ALS care. A generalized linear model was used with dispersion estimation for random effects.Thirty-seven eligible articles described 39 EMS systems and included 33,124 patients. Median survival for all rhythm groups to hospital discharge was 6.4% (interquartile range, 3.7 to 10.3). Odds of survival were 1.06 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.03 to 1.09; P.01) per 5% increase in bystander CPR. Survival was constant if the defibrillation response time interval was less than 6 minutes, decreased as the interval increased from 6 to 11 minutes, and leveled off after 11 minutes (P.01). Compared with BLS-D, odds of survival were as follows: ALS, 1. 71 (95% CI, 1.09 to 2.70; P =.01); BLS plus ALS, 1.47 (95% CI, 0.89 to 2.42; P =.07); and BLS with defibrillation plus ALS, 2.31 (95% CI, 1.47 to 3.62; P.01.)We confirm that greater survival after sudden cardiac arrest is associated with provision of bystander CPR, early defibrillation, or ALS. More research is required to evaluate the relative benefit of early defibrillation versus early ALS.