BACKGROUND: Immediate defibrillation is the traditional approach to resuscitation of cardiac arrest due to ventricular fibrillation or tachycardia (VF/VT). Delaying defibrillation to provide chest compressions may improve survival. We examined the effect of the duration of Emergency Medical Services (EMS) cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) prior to first defibrillation on survival in patients with out-of-hospital VF/VT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From a prospective multi-center observational registry of EMS-treated out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, we identified 1638 EMS-treated cardiac arrests with first recorded rhythm VF/VT or "shockable" and complete data for analysis. Survival to hospital discharge was determined as a function of EMS CPR duration prior to first shock. RESULTS: Compared to the reference group of first EMS CPR duration < or =45 s, the odds of survival was greater among patients who received between 46 and 195 s of EMS CPR before first shock (46-75 s odds ratio [OR] 1.15, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.71-1.87; 76-105 s, OR 1.37, 95% CI 0.80-2.35; 106-135 s, OR 1.53, 95% CI 0.96-2.45; 136-165 s, OR 1.24, 95% CI 0.71-2.15; 166-195 s, OR 1.47, 95% CI 0.85-2.52). The benefit of EMS CPR before defibrillation was reduced when the duration of CPR exceeded 195 s (196-225 s, OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.47-1.81; 226-255 s, OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.46-1.79; 256-285 s, OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.17-1.29; 286-315 s, OR 1.29, 95% CI 0.59-2.85). An optimal EMS CPR duration was not identified and no duration achieved statistical significance. CONCLUSION: In this observational analysis of VF/VT arrest, between 46 and 195 s of EMS CPR prior to defibrillation was weakly associated with improved survival compared to < or =45 s. Randomized trials are needed to confirm the optimal duration of EMS CPR prior to defibrillation and to assess the impact of first CPR duration on all initial rhythms. Copyright 2009 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.
BACKGROUND: Immediate defibrillation is the traditional approach to resuscitation of cardiac arrest due to ventricular fibrillation or tachycardia (VF/VT). Delaying defibrillation to provide chest compressions may improve survival. We examined the effect of the duration of Emergency Medical Services (EMS) cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) prior to first defibrillation on survival in patients with out-of-hospital VF/VT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From a prospective multi-center observational registry of EMS-treated out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, we identified 1638 EMS-treated cardiac arrests with first recorded rhythm VF/VT or "shockable" and complete data for analysis. Survival to hospital discharge was determined as a function of EMS CPR duration prior to first shock. RESULTS: Compared to the reference group of first EMS CPR duration < or =45 s, the odds of survival was greater among patients who received between 46 and 195 s of EMS CPR before first shock (46-75 s odds ratio [OR] 1.15, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.71-1.87; 76-105 s, OR 1.37, 95% CI 0.80-2.35; 106-135 s, OR 1.53, 95% CI 0.96-2.45; 136-165 s, OR 1.24, 95% CI 0.71-2.15; 166-195 s, OR 1.47, 95% CI 0.85-2.52). The benefit of EMS CPR before defibrillation was reduced when the duration of CPR exceeded 195 s (196-225 s, OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.47-1.81; 226-255 s, OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.46-1.79; 256-285 s, OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.17-1.29; 286-315 s, OR 1.29, 95% CI 0.59-2.85). An optimal EMS CPR duration was not identified and no duration achieved statistical significance. CONCLUSION: In this observational analysis of VF/VT arrest, between 46 and 195 s of EMS CPR prior to defibrillation was weakly associated with improved survival compared to < or =45 s. Randomized trials are needed to confirm the optimal duration of EMS CPR prior to defibrillation and to assess the impact of first CPR duration on all initial rhythms. Copyright 2009 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.
Authors: Ian G Stiell; George A Wells; Brian Field; Daniel W Spaite; Lisa P Nesbitt; Valerie J De Maio; Graham Nichol; Donna Cousineau; Josée Blackburn; Doug Munkley; Lorraine Luinstra-Toohey; Tony Campeau; Eugene Dagnone; Marion Lyver Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2004-08-12 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Tom P Aufderheide; Gardar Sigurdsson; Ronald G Pirrallo; Demetris Yannopoulos; Scott McKnite; Chris von Briesen; Christopher W Sparks; Craig J Conrad; Terry A Provo; Keith G Lurie Journal: Circulation Date: 2004-04-05 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Michael Huntgeburth; Christoph Adler; Stephan Rosenkranz; Carsten Zobel; Walter F Haupt; Christian Dohmen; Hannes Reuter Journal: Neurocrit Care Date: 2014-06 Impact factor: 3.210
Authors: Ian G Stiell; Graham Nichol; Brian G Leroux; Thomas D Rea; Joseph P Ornato; Judy Powell; James Christenson; Clifton W Callaway; Peter J Kudenchuk; Tom P Aufderheide; Ahamed H Idris; Mohamud R Daya; Henry E Wang; Laurie J Morrison; Daniel Davis; Douglas Andrusiek; Shannon Stephens; Sheldon Cheskes; Robert H Schmicker; Ray Fowler; Christian Vaillancourt; David Hostler; Dana Zive; Ronald G Pirrallo; Gary M Vilke; George Sopko; Myron Weisfeldt Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2011-09-01 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Kamil Krzyżanowski; Daniel Ślęzak; Sebastian Dąbrowski; Przemysław Żuratyński; Wioletta Mędrzycka-Dąbrowska; Paulina Buca; Paweł Jastrzębski; Marlena Robakowska Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-04-30 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Marlena Robakowska; Daniel Ślęzak; Przemysław Żuratyński; Kamil Krzyżanowski; Anna Tyrańska-Fobke; Magdalena Błażek; Jarosław Woroń Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-03-22 Impact factor: 3.390